The applicants sought declarations that a 2006 zoning by-law amendment permitting aggregate extraction on a neighbouring property was of no force and effect, and that the proposed aggregate extraction was not a legal non-conforming use.
The respondent planning board argued the use was permitted under transitional provisions of the 2014 Comprehensive Zoning By-Law and constituted a legal non-conforming use.
The court dismissed the application, finding the transitional provisions valid under the Planning Act and concluding that the aggregate extraction qualified as a legal non-conforming use due to its consistent, albeit intermittent, historical operation.
