Syracuse Aggregate Corp. v. Town of Camillus, 51 N.Y.2d 650 (1980)

When determining the extent of a prior nonconforming use for quarrying, courts consider whether the nature of the use and the landowner’s activities manifestly imply an appropriation of the entire parcel for such use prior to the restrictive ordinance’s adoption.

Summary

Syracuse Aggregate Corp. sought to annul a determination by the Town of Camillus Board of Zoning Appeals that revoked its excavation permit. The permit was for a 25-acre parcel previously used for quarrying since 1926. The town argued that a 1961 zoning ordinance limited the nonconforming use to the five acres actively excavated then. The Court of Appeals held that the prior nonconforming use extended to the entire 25-acre parcel because the prior owner’s activities demonstrated an intent to appropriate the entire parcel for quarrying, despite the limited excavation at the time of the ordinance.

Facts

Arthur Herring owned a 25-acre parcel in the Town of Camillus since 1926 and operated a quarrying business, extracting sand, gravel, and topsoil. He built haul roads throughout the parcel and a processing structure in the center. While concentrated on five acres, Herring extracted materials from various locations across the property based on customer demands. Syracuse Aggregate Corp. contracted to buy the property in 1977, contingent upon obtaining an excavation permit. After purchasing the property in 1978, the town revoked the permit based on a councilman’s appeal, arguing it expanded Herring’s nonconforming use.

Procedural History

The Town of Camillus Board of Zoning Appeals revoked Syracuse Aggregate Corp.’s excavation permit. Special Term dismissed Syracuse Aggregate’s Article 78 petition, holding the nonconforming use was limited to the five acres mined at the time of the 1961 ordinance. The Appellate Division reversed, finding Herring’s activities manifested an intent to appropriate the entire parcel for quarrying, and annulled the Board’s determination. The Town appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

Whether a prior nonconforming use involving the extraction of sand and gravel extends to the entire parcel of land or is limited to the portion actually excavated when the municipality adopted a zoning ordinance prohibiting expansion of the nonconforming use.

Holding

Yes, because the prior owner’s activities manifested an intent to appropriate the entire parcel for quarrying purposes before the restrictive ordinance was enacted.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals stated that while zoning aims to eliminate nonconforming uses, it cannot prohibit an existing use at the time of the ordinance. To establish a nonconforming use right, the property must have been used for the nonconforming purpose, not merely contemplated for such use, when the ordinance took effect. The court acknowledged that “not every inch of the property need be embraced by the use in order to entitle the entire parcel to exemption from a restrictive ordinance.” The court adopted the prevailing test: “whether the nature of the incipient nonconforming use, in the light of the character and adaptability to such use of the entire parcel, manifestly implies an appropriation of the entirety to such use prior to the adoption of the restrictive ordinance.”

The Court noted that quarrying is a unique land use, involving the sale of the land itself. The Court also quoted other jurisdictions noting that quarrying constitutes the use of land as a “diminishing asset.” The court reasoned that operators will not excavate the entire parcel at once due to economic necessities. Given the substantial quarrying activities over a long period, the service roads, and the processing structure, the court concluded that Herring manifested an intent to use the entire parcel for quarrying. The court emphasized that its holding did not grant Syracuse Aggregate carte blanche, as the town could still reasonably regulate the quarry’s operation or even eliminate the nonconforming use reasonably. However, the town could not arbitrarily deny a permit for the continued quarrying operation.