Court Opinion

ID: 9785272
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 21:13:43.254456+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:36:14.408301
License: Public Domain

Chief Judge Lippman (dissenting in part).
While we agree with the majority that parcels 17C/25C and 12B/25I are entitled to nonconforming use status under our decision in Matter of Syracuse Aggregate Corp. v Weise (51 NY2d 278 [1980]), and while we further agree that remittal for a determination of when the roadway parcels were abandoned is appropriate, we conclude that the nonconforming use principles outlined in Syracuse Aggregate and Matter of Dolomite Prods. Co. v Kipers (23 AD2d 339 [4th Dept 1965], affd 19 NY2d 739 [1967]) mandate a *104different result for parcels 5 and 25D. Therefore we respectfully dissent.
Prior to today’s decision, our nonconforming use analysis was straightforward and well settled. The “overriding policy of zoning is aimed at the ultimate elimination of nonconforming uses,” but “a zoning ordinance cannot prohibit an existing use to which the property has been devoted at the time of the enactment of the ordinance” (Syracuse Aggregate, 51 NY2d at 284). Necessarily, the owner seeking to use property in a manner that is inconsistent with a zoning ordinance must not only have been able to legally use the property in that manner prior to the passage of the zoning ordinance, but the owner must also have actually used the property in that manner or manifested an intent to so use the property prior to the zoning ordinance becoming effective (id. at 284-286). The inquiry may be succinctly stated as a two-step process: (1) could the property lawfully be used in the manner desired at the time the restrictive zoning ordinance became effective, and (2) did the property owner either actually use the property in that manner or manifest an intention to so use the property. If the answer to both questions is yes, then the owner is entitled to nonconforming use status; if the answer to either is no, then the owner is not entitled to nonconforming use status. We have further explained that it is not “possible to extend the protection of a permitted nonconforming use established on one parcel of land to physically separate though adjoining parcels” (id. at 286, citing, inter alia, Matter of Dolomite Prods. Co. v Kipers, 23 AD2d 339 [1965]).
The majority, without saying so, casts aside our prior straightforward analytical framework for nonconforming uses but fails to replace it with any coherent new framework. With respect to parcel 5, on this record (which includes detailed maps as well as aerial photographs of the land), it is plain that Indian Road separates parcel 5 from the land that has been actively quarried. Parcel 5 is, very simply, a “physically separate though adjoining” parcel that under a straightforward application of well settled law should be subject to the zoning ordinance (id.). Instead, the majority creates an entirely new test and tells us that, despite the fact that parcel 5 “is divided from the AG District by Indian Road” (majority op at 94), the road should not be understood to separate parcel 5 from the rest of BCS’s property because the road “is not a physical impasse” and it “does [not] substantially alter the nature and character of the *105property as a whole” (majority op at 100). It seems fairly clear, however, that BCS itself did not see the road as insubstantial; as the majority notes, BCS’s predecessor “negotiated, from 1963 to 1969, with the Town to relocate Indian Road for unfettered use of its entire parcel for mining” (majority op at 100). Rather than just demonstrating BCS’s intent to mine parcel 5, as the majority concludes, these negotiations demonstrate that BCS itself recognized the reality that Indian Road separated parcel 5 from the remainder of its land such that it did not have “unfettered use” of parcel 5.1
The majority has concluded that a factual question exists as to when BCS acquired parcel 25D and therefore does not decide today whether parcel 25D is entitled to nonconforming use status. It is certainly true, as the majority explains, that if BCS did not acquire parcel 25D until 1991 BCS would not be entitled to mine parcel 25D. There is, however, no need to determine whether parcel 25D was in fact acquired as part of the 1959 Reinstein lease because, even if it was acquired then, it still could not have been lawfully mined at the time the zoning ordinance went into effect in 1969. After the 1942 zoning ordinance, there is no dispute that the owner or lessee of parcel 25D would have been required to obtain a permit to use parcel 25D as a quarry. It is further undisputed that parcel 25D was not covered by the permits BCS and/or its predecessors obtained from the Town. Thus, again applying our previously straightforward framework for nonconforming uses, because parcel 25D could not be lawfully mined at the time the 1969 zoning ordinance became effective, it cannot now be entitled to nonconforming use status.
The majority conflates the manifestation of intent to mine with the lawful ability to mine. The majority explains that “mining permits are strong evidence of a manifestation of intent to mine a given area” and that permits “are an important piece of evidence in analyzing the standard set forth in Syracuse Aggregate” (majority op at 101-102). There is no question here that BCS and its corporate predecessors intended to mine parcel 25D; the question is whether or not they could have lawfully done so at the time the 1969 zoning ordinance became effective, a question the majority never squarely addresses. Intent to mine and *106lawful ability to mine are two separate issues. Although BCS’s predecessor manifested an intention to mine parcel 25D, until today that alone was not enough: it also must have been lawful to mine parcel 25D at the time the ordinance went into effect. As BCS concedes, no mining permit was issued for parcel 25D as of 1969, therefore it was not lawful to mine parcel 25D at that time.
It is not, as the majority states, that we conclude that “permits are a prerequisite to establishing prior nonconforming use rights” (majority op at 101) in all nonconforming use cases or even in all nonconforming use cases involving quarrying. Rather, the touchstone in our case law has been lawful use, and, in the Town of Cheektowaga, the lawful way to mine at the time the ordinance went into effect (outside of certain districts delineated for mining) was to first obtain a permit to mine from the Town. Because a mining permit was not issued for parcel 25D it could not have been lawfully mined. In remitting as to parcel 25D, the majority opens up the possibility that BCS will be able to mine parcel 25D now, some 40 years after the passage of the 1969 zoning ordinance restricting such usage, despite the fact that BCS’s predecessor could not have lawfully mined the property.
By failing to adhere to our prior analytical framework in this context, the majority today muddies an area of law that ought to be predictable for a host of practical purposes. For instance, residents of the Town purchased homes near land that, until today, BCS had no right to mine and this development undoubtedly affects those properties in a variety of ways {see Matter of Dolomite, 23 AD2d at 342-343 [“Such a philosophy of planning could stunt or kill the growth of substantial areas of property surrounding the parcels in question, for abutting owners would be required to wait, as in the instant case, for decades to determine the use which could be made of the property”]).
Moreover, local governments are particularly well-positioned to plan for the physical and economic development of the communities and constituencies that they serve. Here, since 1942 when the Town first enacted a zoning ordinance, the Town has sought to control the development of town land used for quarrying purposes. The very fact that, outside certain districts, a permit was required in order to mine land in the Town means that the Town might disallow that use in certain instances. When and in what manner the Town can do so should be predictable and subject to clear rules. Before today, these rules were simple: if a landowner could lawfully use property in a *107manner restricted by a new zoning ordinance and either actually used the property in that manner or manifested an intent to do so at the time the new zoning ordinance became effective, that landowner could still use the land in that manner after the passage of the ordinance. This, apparently, is no longer the framework we will apply in nonconforming use cases.
Finally, we agree with the majority that it is unclear on this record when the roadway parcels ceased to be used as roadways by the public. BCS suggests that by at least 1967 they were not used as roadways. If the roadway parcels were used as roadways as late as 1967, then they could not have been abandoned under section 205 of the Highway Law by 1969, and if they were not abandoned, then they could not have been mined lawfully.2 On the other hand, if the roadway parcels were not traveled upon for the six years prior to the effective date of the zoning ordinance in 1969, then they would have been abandoned pursuant to the Highway Law at the time the 1969 ordinance became effective. If the roadways within the special quarrying district created by the Town were abandoned as of 1969, it appears BCS could have lawfully mined them at the time the 1969 zoning ordinance became effective and the roadway parcels would be eligible for nonconforming use status. When the roadway parcels were abandoned is an open question. Therefore, we agree with the majority’s remittal for a determination as to when the roadway parcels ceased to be used by the public as roadways.
In sum, we agree with the majority as to parcels 17C/25C and 12B/25I and would reverse the Appellate Division as to those parcels. We further agree that we should remit for a determination as to when the roadway parcels were abandoned. However, we disagree with the majority as to parcels 5 and 25D and would affirm the Appellate Division as to those parcels for the reasons we have stated.
Judges Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur with Judge Ciparick; Chief Judge Lippman dissents in part in a separate opinion in which Judge Graffeo concurs.
Order modified, etc.

. Moreover, it is entirely unclear how Indian Road may be characterized as a “relatively narrow roadway (49.5 feet)” (majority op at 100). The maps and photographs in the record make clear that Indian Road is just that—a road—and at a width of 49.5 feet, it is a roadway wide enough to accommodate several lanes of traffic.

. It appears, at least with respect to the roadway parcels, that the majority agrees that both lawful use and a manifestation of intent at the time the restrictive ordinance became effective are required and that a manifestation of intent alone will not suffice.