|
REEN v. CASTLE CONCRETE COMPANY t:~lm. ,gg
<br />CiU• u., tblu., rA7a P .A Gee
<br />I. Constltutlonal Law Ca70.1 (7) privaR• mtisancc. At issue is whether the
<br />\\'hen the question of public nuirutce opcr.ihon of a lirneslone yuarry-a prrmis-
<br />cersus publicly authorized adivi[ies forms Bible ac[inty by legi<lati ve zoning action-
<br />the issue, courts will defer [o the lrgisla i:ut by judicial decree be deemed a public
<br />rice branch of goecrnmeut with constiut- nuisance. Also at issue is +vhether the evi-
<br />tional or other relevant limitations, derive supports a finding and declaration u(
<br />q. Nulsance Pli4 ~ ~~ t 1 ~ ~ I' 1'
<br />:\etivities of defendant concrete cum-
<br />pauy on its oa'n property did not c~nsti-
<br />Wte a "pul+l ii nuisance" +vher¢ operitiun of
<br />a limcsroue quarry b}• the concrctc iompa-
<br />nc +cas a prnuissiblr activity Ly Icgisla-
<br />tice zoning action.
<br />Rev UuLliratiou \\'ordx and Phrasex
<br />fur utliur judirinl Coua nu•IioLx nod
<br />de(iuitiuun.
<br />9. Nuisance Cr 33
<br />Gcidence was not suf hcient to show
<br />th;d defendant runcrete company's opera-
<br />tion of hmestonc yuarry on its own prup-
<br />ertr constituted a private nuisance.
<br />Kennett, Ileinii ke, \lorrison & Holl:r
<br />+cay, Howard \lorrison, Colorado Springs,
<br />for plaintiffs-appellees.
<br />iivans, Perersun, Turlx•[ R• Briggo-, I':ud
<br />\'. Lraus, lulurado Springs, lla+vaun,
<br />Sages, Sherman f Howard, Don I1. Sher-
<br />wood, Paul J. tichlauch, I)en ecr, Erie dc-
<br />j¢ndant-appcll:urt.
<br />Phillip r\. Fcndall, Colorado Springs,
<br />(or amicus curiae Sierra Club.
<br />llanicl P. Edo ards, Colorado Springs,
<br />for anticuc striae springs :\rea Reauti-
<br />hd :\ssn.
<br />In this appeal, crrti (+cd [o this Court by
<br />the Court of :\ppeals, Castle concrctc
<br />ICastle) seeks to have set aside a lower
<br />court permanent injunction by +vhich ils en-
<br />tln• miutng operation at Snyder lhtarry in
<br />the planitou Jpring5 ;trey wilt for all prac-
<br />tical purposes he shut dawn. Nohcith-
<br />staudiug that Castle was shown to be in full
<br />compliance with st:me statutes and Tuning
<br />la+vs and that its operation was and is a use
<br />sty right, the lil Paso County district court
<br />{mtmd Castle's yuarry to be a public :uu1 :+
<br />,t pm a c umsane¢ .ts to 1 tc p,i rtiw ,+r p am-
<br />tiffs. \Ve hold the lower court judgment
<br />and injunctive decree erroneous and re-
<br />verse.
<br />Castle is a Colorado corporation which,
<br />fur a number of years, has bceu cugaged in
<br />limestone quarry activities in the vicinity of
<br />Colorado Springs. Since 1915 Castle has
<br />operated (luceus Canyon, which lies north
<br />and west of Colorado Springs. lu order to
<br />provide itself with a continuing source of
<br />limestone, Castle began in 1gGy to acquire
<br />property, ind riding the Snyder yuarry. :\c-
<br />cording to the evidence, Castle had invested
<br />approsimatcly anc quarter of a millimt
<br />dollars m buying the land. In the spring
<br />of 1970, ladle began preparations (or pro-
<br />duction at the Snyder quarry Icy improving
<br />a jeep road to provide access to the pro-
<br />posed operatimts, \\'hen suit was insti-
<br />tuted, little if asp of the yuarry operations
<br />had Lren cununcnecJ.
<br />Seven residents u( the area-with homes
<br />over a mile east of the Castle Snyder
<br />quarry-instituted this action in the I•:I Paso
<br />County district corer[ seeking a preliminary
<br />and permanent injunction restraining Castle
<br />from any further quarry operations at the
<br />tinyder site. By order of court entered be-
<br />fore trial, the asserted class action by the
<br />plaintiffs (or and on behalf of all the citi-
<br />zens of the area was dismissed, and only the
<br />claim of [hc individual plain[if (s as to their
<br />respective property rights remained. NoL
<br />withstmding the limitation n( the action, ti
<br />days of trial and S,U00 pages of testimony
<br />were devoted to statements, generalized
<br />concepts, and some cspert opinion on ecol-
<br />ogy and environmental tonsider:uions. The
<br />imtrt, iu ?7 pages of findings of fart and
<br />i oni hisiuns n( htw, tlevoled seecral pages
<br />also to the riulogiial effect of quarrying
<br />un the Front P.angc of the mountains.
<br />I lo+cccer, the court very sped (ically ruled
<br />that the testimony was irrt9cvan[ to and
<br />!~
<br />
|