PERMFILE51018 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

t, j. 590 Colo. b0'J PACIFIC REPORTER, 2d SERIE3 vvas not considered by (he court on the issue of propriety of the injunction. Fur- ther confusion +cas added to the trial court's ruling un the public nuisance vehcn the court stated it +cas taLing judicial notice of the value of tourism to the region. The court made a specific finding as to the pos- sible cikrt of the quarry on the tourist tradr and spccnla[ed on the possible cco- unmic loss to the \Ianitott tiprings and Gar- den of the Gods area. The court also found the public to be affected by the view of the Ihunt kangc from the cast ern plains. Colorado tiprings I:cmniful .\ssotiation ;utd ~icrra Cluh as amicr curiae filed bncis offer the trial. They did not intervene and ++crc not panics to the action. I h~fendant Castle argues here (I) that as a matter of law the trial wort e~cceded its ;ut[hurity in enjoining the operations ac a public nuis;utci•; attd (Ill that the evi- dence does nut sappor[ Ihr finding n(a pri- vah• nuisatuc. I'lainti (fs, ac well as the amici curiae. argue several grounds fur affirming the trial court. It is asscrtrd that, although not generally a nuisance per se, open-pit quarry operations whldt create dust, air pollution, periodic blasting, and, must importantly, ncsthcties harm arc proper bases for abate- ment as a private and public nnisancc. I. Taking up first the question of tfic public nuisance, this court very recently discussed the I:nv of public uuis;uuc as pronounced in Itubi nson Rrick C'o. o. Luthi. I IS Colo. InG, 149 I'2d 171. .1 re Ilobbs v. smith, Colo., -{9,i I'2d 135L, ++hcrcin the following wits yuotcd (rum Rrrbinsnn /trick: "'\\'hcrc the Icgishttice arm of the goccrmncnt has dcclarrd by sL'ttutc and zoning resolution +vlsrt ;rctivitirs stay or may nut be conducted in ;t prescribed zone, rt has in effect declared what is or i~ not a puGlir nuisunrr. 1Vhat might hove been a proper held far judicial ac- twn prior to .ouch legislation brcnmes im- proper when the lave-making Lr.rnch of 1 government has rntered the field. None of the numerous cases cited appears to go so far as to approve the enjoining of a business operating under valid legislative zoning authorit}."' (Emphasis added.) This court then hold that, note+~ithstanding snch a ruling on public nuisance: "• * • It •s no+e the generally ar ceptcd rule that regardless of compliance +vith zoning ordinances or regulations, both business and residential uses may be enjoined i( Utcy rmutihdc n anisnnre to rot aJjoining rrn~rrlY axc•nrr ar rrsirlrnl. [Citations]" {Emphasis added.) [1, 2] /lobbs and Roard of County Com• missioncrs v. Thompson, Calo., J93 P.?d LiSti, are authority for the proposition that, ++hen the question of public nuisance versus p,ddicly authori zed activities forms the it vre, the courts will defer to the Iegislatice branch of govcntncnt with constitutional nr other relevant limitru ions. Ilvthcrmore, in the most recent case of \Vcsiern Paving Construction Co. v. Roard of County Com~ missioncrs, Colo., `OG P?d 1230, the court srttcd: "fn addition, +vhcn the matter rs per' muted by right n the zone created and erthe•r through au environmental concern or a change of circumstances the use is incompatible vcitl. prior usage, the proper procedure is to amend the zoning resolu- tion. I I. .\n esmnutation of the record an thcpro- priety of a findinl~ of a private nuisance rcecals suLstanti;+l infirmities and its fail ore to support the court's judgment. Com- mcn[ (g) of [hc Restatement, Torts sj R??, pointing up the rcquirrmcnt that there must he a "substantial in+~asion" to crcare a cause of action in nuisance, states: "By substantia' inv;rcion is mean[ au invasimt that imoh~es more than slight iuconcenienee ar petty annocance. The la+v does not concern itself with trifles, and the re (ore there must be a real and ;ytpreciahle intericrence with the present