|
|
Purchasers could not continue nonconforming use.
- Article from:
-
Land Use Law Report
- Article date:
-
April 26, 2006
|
Copyright informationCOPYRIGHT 2006 Business Publishers, Inc. This material is published under license from the publisher through the Gale Group, Farmington Hills, Michigan. All inquiries regarding rights should be directed to the Gale Group. (Hide copyright information)
|
The Rhode Island Supreme Court has ruled the buyers of property formerly used as a horse farm, a nonconforming use, did not have the right to continue the use, because their predecessors in title had voluntarily abandoned it by applying for a rezoning of the property (Duffy v. Milder, No. 2004-256-Appeal, April 14, 2006).
From 1954 to 1997, the Poncelet family operated a horse farm in East Greenwich. They sold the farm, designated as Lots 24 and 28 on the assessor's map, to James and Paula Malm. The Malms intended to build a condominium development on the tract. They successfully petitioned the town to rezone Lot 28 and part of Lot 24 from residential and farming to ...