Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Zoning Bulletin <br /> <br />, . <br /> <br />The court also rejected BC$I's argument that it was entitled to quarry') <br />suhparcels 25D, 28A and B, 29A and B, and 30A and B, and parcels <br />31 through 33 as a nonconforming use because they were contiguous to <br />BCSI's other suhparcels and parcels where quarrying had occurred over <br />. a long period of time. The court concluded 'that those subparcels and <br />parcels were not entitled to be quarried under nonconforming use status <br />betause BCSI had failed to. establish that it conducted any prior mining <br />operations on them that evidenced "an intent to appropriate the entire <br />parcel" for such operations. <br />Finally, the court overturned the lower court and concluded that quar- <br />rying on subparcels 17C/25 C and 12B/25I was not entitled as a noIicon- <br />forming use. The court 'said that despite the fact that BCST had applied <br />for and was issued mining permits in 1955 and 1960 for those suhpar- <br />cels, BCSI had never operated any kind of quar.rying activities on them <br />prior to 1969. The issuance of mining permits, without any other activi- <br />ties undertaken in furtherance of mining, did not entitle the subparcels to <br />be quarried as a nonconforming._ <br /> <br />See also: Rudolf Steiner Fellowship Foundation v. De Luccia, 90 N. Y2d <br />453; 662 N.YS.2d 411,685 N.E.2d 192 (1997). <br /> <br />See also: Rodriguesv. Rosenthal, 112 A.D.2d 1000, 492 N. YS.2d 809 <br />(2d Dep't 1985). <br /> <br />. Case Note: Because the court found that the northern portion of <br />parcel 31 was actually located within the AG :District,'- it held that <br />quarrying was a permitted use in that portion of parcel 31. <br /> <br /> <br />12 <br /> <br />@ 2008 Thomson ReuterslWest <br /> <br />74 <br /> <br />(~ <br />. -) <br />'-'--~/ <br /> <br />("j <br />