Opinion ID: 2320821
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Environmental and groundwater impacts.

Text: The town council then concluded that RICO was operating outside the scope of, and in contravention of, the intent of our Earth Removal Ordinance and licensing procedure. It ordered RICO to cease and desist any site expansion activities on the site until such time as [RICO is] in total compliance with all regulatory requirements. No appeal was taken. Meanwhile, the town had filed a counterclaim in RICO's pending Superior Court action. The counterclaim asserted that RICO's use of its property violated various town ordinances, and it challenged the existence and the validity of RICO's alleged nonconforming use of the property. Thereafter, RICO moved for partial summary judgment on its petition for declaratory relief, and the town cross-motioned for summary judgment on its special defenses and counterclaim. After hearing and reviewing the summary judgment hearing materials, a Superior Court hearing justice ruled on October 21, 1996, that:

(4) the 1993 order was not appealed and became final. In accordance with that order, RICO has a limited grandfathered right to blast rock; however, it may not blast ledge. In 1998, a trial on the remaining issues raised by the parties was conducted before a second and different Superior Court justice sitting without a jury. [6] After hearing testimony and reviewing the evidence, that trial justice considered the preexisting nonconforming use findings made earlier by the summary judgment motion hearing justice as being conclusive upon her. She determined that the first hearing justice's summary judgment findings had become the law of the case. She rejected, however, RICO's contention that the town was equitably estopped from prohibiting its blasting of ledge. After entry of the final judgment, the parties filed cross-appeals. Additional information will be provided as needed.