LOCAL HYDROFRACKING BANS 659
Sardinia.^227 These cases dealt specifically with whether a town
could use its zoning power to limit where mining could occur
and if a town could ban mining entirely.^228
In Frew Run, the Court of Appeals held that a town was
permitted to use its zoning power to regulate the location of a
mine. In that case, the town of Carroll passed a zoning
ordinance that regulated the placement of mines within the town,
although the ordinance did not ban them entirely.^229 A mining
company sued the town claiming that the town’s zoning powers
were preempted by a state statute, the MLRL.^230 The court
reviewed the text of the statute and found that the town’s zoning
regulations were not superseded by the MLRL because the
zoning regulations did not “relat[e] to the extractive mining
industry.”^231 Local laws would be superseded only if they
detailed the specific operations and practice of how the mining
could occur.^232 Towns had the power to regulate the land itself
and thereby could control the locations of the mines.^233
Additionally, the court held that there was no evidence of
intention by the legislature to preempt local zoning power.^234 The
legislature’s intent, concern for the environment, was consistent
with the aim of the zoning ordinances.^235
In Gernatt, the Court of Appeals affirmed a town’s use of its
zoning power to ban mining entirely. In this case, the town of
Sardina passed a zoning law which banned the construction of
any new mines in town.^236 The law did not affect previously
constructed mines.^237 The town claimed this was an extension of
(^227) Gernatt, 664 N.E.2d at 1234.
(^228) See Frew Run, 518 N.E.2d at 921; see also Gernatt, 664 N.E.2d at
1230.
(^229) See Frew Run, 518 N.E.2d at 921.
(^230) Id. at 921–22.
(^231) Id. at 922.
(^232) Id. at 923.
(^233) Id. at 923–24.
(^234) Id. at 923.
(^235) Id.
(^236) See Gernatt Asphalt Prods., Inc. v. Town of Sardinia, 664 N.E.2d
1226, 1230–31 (N.Y. 1996).
(^237) Id. at 1231