LegalCaseDocs.com
shopping cart  
  |     
Search
 

 
New Visitors


 VeriSign Secure Site

 Get Adobe Reader

GERNATT ASPHALT PRODS., INC. v TOWN OF SARDINIA Click to find out why . . .



Keywords & Phrases
CourtCode: AP, CourtName: NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS, Plaintiff: GERNATT ASPHALT PRODS., INC., State: NEW YORK, UniqueCaseRef: NE>AP>087_0668, Amendments, Zoning Ordinance, Mining, Mined Land Reclamation, Petitioner, Matter, Provisions, Sardinia, York, Referrals, Authority, Respondent, Ny2d, Special Permit, Municipality, Environment, Local Zoning Ordinance, Nonconforming, Legislation, Seqra, Planning Board, Public Hearing, Zoning Districts, Executive Session, Mlrl, Open Meetings Law, Mining Operations, Publication, Statutory Provisions Relating , ContentID: 120251083

Case Documents
1 1996-03-28 OPINION
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 124992
15 pages
HTML
Total Documents: 1 document , 15 pages
Price: $ 19.95


IVESLCD01 KGI0001
 
 

 Forgot your password?


1 . OPINION

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
ZONING ORDINANCE
MINING
LAW
MINED LAND RECLAMATION
PETITIONER
MATTER
PROVISIONS
SARDINIA
YORK
REFERRALS
AUTHORITY
RESPONDENT
NY2D
SPECIAL PERMIT
MUNICIPALITY
ENVIRONMENT
LOCAL ZONING ORDINANCE
NONCONFORMING
LEGISLATION
SEQRA
PLANNING BOARD
PUBLIC HEARING
ZONING DISTRICTS
EXECUTIVE SESSION
MLRL
OPEN MEETINGS LAW
MINING OPERATIONS
PUBLICATION
STATUTORY PROVISIONS RELATING


  IN THE MATTER OF GERNATT ASPHALT PRODUCTS, INC., RESPONDENT, v. THE TOWN OF
  SARDINIA, ET AL., APPELLANTS.

    87 N.Y.2d 668, 664 N.E.2d 1226, 642 N.Y.S.2d 164 (1996).
    March 28, 1996

   (Case Commentary by Editorial Board)
   4 No. 48(1996 NY Int. 58)
   Decided March 28, 1996
     _________________________________________________________________

   This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
   in the New York Reports.

    David J. Seeger, for Appellants.
   Gary J. O'Donnell, for Respondent.

    SIMONS, J.:

    Petitioner challenges the legality of amendments to the Town of
   Sardinia's Zoning Ordinance which eliminated mining as a permitted use
   throughout the Town. The principal issues presented are whether: (1)
   the Town violated various statutory provisions relating to referral
   and public notice of the amendments when it enacted some but not all
   of the amendments that were proposed; (2) the New York State Mined
   Land Reclamation Law supersedes the Town's authority to amend its
   Zoning Ordinance in a manner that eliminates mining as a permitted use
   throughout the Town; and (3) whether the Town's action constituted
   impermissible exclusionary zoning. Also presented are secondary issues
   regarding the Town's compliance with procedures mandated by the State
   Environmental Quality Review Act and the Open Meetings provisions of
   the Public Officers Law.

    The Town of Sardinia is a small rural community located in Western
   New York. Farming is the economic mainstay but it is rich in deposits
   of extractable minerals. Eight mines, covering over 600 acres, are
   presently located within the Town. The mining uses were lawful under
   the Town Zoning Ordinance adopted in 1969, which permitted mining in
   all R-A districts and, by incorporation, in all other districts in the
   Town. Town Board approval of a mining site was required, and
   conditioned on consideration of the possible nuisance to neighbors of
   the proposed site and the miner's plan to restore the land after
   mining operations ceased.

    Petitioner Gernatt has conducted mining operations at several sites
   within the Town for many years and presently owns three operating
SNIPPETS:
  • IN THE MATTER OF GERNATT ASPHALT PRODUCTS, INC., RESPONDENT, v.
  • This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York
  • Petitioner challenges the legality of amendments to the Town of Sardinia's Zoning Ordinance
  • The principal issues presented are whether: the Town violated various statutory provisions
  • The Town of Sardinia is a small rural community located in Western New York.
  • Town Board approval of a mining site was required, and conditioned on consideration of the
  • It is important to note three points about the Town's actions and the three proposed ts been adopted as proposed mining on existing sites would have been a specially permitted use;and
  • The Appellate Division determined further that petitioner had standing to challenge the
  • Town Law sections 264and 265require a town board to give the public at least ten days' notice
  • To facilitate regional review of amendments to a local zoning ordinance, General Municipal
  • The hearing was well attended and lively, with substantial opposition to the amendments
  • In light of comments made during the public hearing, Town counsel suggested that the Board
  • A notice that describes the proposed change with reasonable precision will satisfy these
  • The public was advised that the repealer provisions "would eliminate mining as a permitted
  • the referrals to the County Board and the Town Planning Board were sufficient.
  • we addressed whether the MLRL preempted a municipality's zoning ordinance when the DEC had
  • Relying on the amendment to the MLRL as a restatement of the policy in favor of fostering and ed Land Reclamation Act.
  • The Town Board noted the potential adverse effect of such growth upon the environment and the
  •    |