• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

Must remove a $1.8M mansion

jar546

Forum Coordinator
Joined
Oct 16, 2009
Messages
10,971
Location
Somewhere Too Hot & Humid
It's a zoning thing.

PROVIDENCE — The state Supreme Court ruled Friday that a $1.8-million house set in picturesque Point Judith must be removed because the developer built it entirely on public park land dedicated to recreation and contemplation.

The high court found that while the justices were not unsympathetic to developer Robert C. Lamoureux’s plight, they were convinced that it would be “an unjust result” to order the transfer of the title of the property to Lamoureux or to award money damages as compensation to the rightful owners of the land, the Rose Nulman Park Foundation.

The ruling upholds a 2012 decision by Superior Court Judge Brian P. Stern ordering Lamoureux to remove within 180 days the three-story house that features a rooftop cabana with a Jacuzzi and wet bar. Stern found that the oceanfront house must be demolished or moved because it constituted a continuing trespass on Rose Nulman Park.

James E. Kelleher, a lawyer for Lamoureux, had argued there were exceptions in which the court could impose remedies short of removal.

“We’re obviously disappointed,” Kelleher said Friday. His client is disappointed, too, that alternative plans, such as a land swap, “were not given much consideration.”

Lamoureux has approval from the town, the state Department of Environmental Management and the Coastal Resources Management Council to undertake the “enormously cumbersome” process of moving the house and septic system to the neighboring lot, he said.

The environmental advocacy group Save The Bay has filed suit to block that move based on its impact on the sensitive coastal Money Pond and the bordering wetlands, according to Kendra Beaver, a staff lawyer with the environmental advocacy group. CRMC’s approval was not based on evidence, she said.

“Our position is they can move the house to a buildable lot,” said Beaver, who praised the high court ruling.

Lamoureux, a Warwick developer, purchased land on Ocean Road in 1984. Three years later, he engaged ERA Engineering to subdivide the lot into two parcels. He conveyed three acres at 1444 Ocean Rd. to Four Twenty Corp., of which Lamoureux is president.

In 2010, relying on Carrigan Engineering, Four Twenty built the house “on what the faulty plans and survey” identified as land belonging to Four Twenty.

Construction was completed in January 2011. That same month, Four Twenty entered into a purchase-and-sale agreement with a prospective buyer for $1.9 million. That buyer conducted a survey that showed the house resting squarely on park land and backed out of the deal.

Lamoureux immediately contacted Carol B. Nulman, a trustee, about the problem and whether an accommodation could be reached.

In March 2011, the Rose Nulman Park Foundation, with Carol B. and Joel S. Nulman as trustees, filed suit accusing Four Twenty and Lamoureux of trespass. They argued they were being prevented from exercising the full use and enjoyment of their property and asked the court to prohibit the continuing trespass. They asked that the house be removed, and that the park be returned to its original condition.

Saul Nulman, a New York City businessman, bought property neighboring the Point Judith Lighthouse in 1993, with the goal of creating a park to honor his mother. Before he died in 2006, Nulman transferred the land to the foundation with a declaration of trust establishing that it be maintained as a free, public park for recreation and contemplation.

Carol Nulman testified during a bench trial before Stern about a $1.5-million penalty provision in the trust that specifies that the park land never be sold or built upon.

Lamoureux, too, told the court that he had spent about $619,000 on construction and that the house was set on 4½ acres of the park. He put the cost of moving it at $300,000 to $400,000.

In ruling, the Supreme Court noted that the Surfrider Foundation, which weighed in on the case, described the park as “a diamond on the necklace that is Rhode Island’s beautiful coastline.”

“This clear commitment of the land’s use as community space satisfies us that any attempt to build on even a portion of the property would constitute an irreparable injury not only to the plaintiff but to the public,” Justice Gilbert V. Indeglia wrote for the court.

While Lamoureux may have “clean hands,” the foundation is clearly an innocent party as well, the court said. The foundation had been put through “the inconvenience of protecting its right to its property in court as a consequence of wanting to ensure that the public would always be able to enjoy the property in its natural state.”

To force the foundation to yield any of the park would be “to effect a judicial taking of property for private benefit,” the court said.

Mark W. Freel, a lawyer for the Nulmans, did not immediately return a phone call to his office Friday.





http://www.providencejournal.com/breaking-news/content/20140613-r.i.-supreme-court-point-judith-house-built-in-public-park-must-be-removed.ece
 
OOPs Have seen that here a few times--one final survey showed empty lot builder had built on adjacent one that that fortunately they owned and the approvals would work and buyer agreed to new contract for house next door. The other permit was denied due to garage addition being in sewer main easment, they built anyway without permit; 40 years later it was found and the subsequent owner had to remove half the garage.
 
some one never caught this as it was being built??? no one goes to the park???
 
In an era of 'affluenza' (the inane notion that excessive wealth is somehow a handicap... Really?) it's nice to see some courts still get it right.

I have little (no?) sympathy for the developer, less for the builder and even less for whomever plotted it.

My fear is that a case like this will end up in front of the SCOTUS, who have recently abandoned the rule of law for the rule of wealth.
 
cda said:
some one never caught this as it was being built??? no one goes to the park???
Back side of the park on the boundary, park started action right after it was discovered by survey.
 
JBI said:
In an era of 'affluenza' (the inane notion that excessive wealth is somehow a handicap... Really?) it's nice to see some courts still get it right. I have little (no?) sympathy for the developer, less for the builder and even less for whomever plotted it.

My fear is that a case like this will end up in front of the SCOTUS, who have recently abandoned the rule of law for the rule of wealth.
It has nothing to due with wealth.

The man built with the understanding, by professionals, that it was located properly. I don't care if he is worth 100 million in American, it ain't right tater.

But the land trust has a valid complaint, obviously. If it were mine I might want it gone too. It's just a shame they could not agree to terms short of demolition. The court did not punish the developer for wealth, which would be pretty damn commie. It was a ruling based on what was right, correcting a mistake.

Aaand...Why the assumption the land trust is not wealthy? Think that land was acquired in a shrewd trade for a '76 Pinto and a ham sandwich?

Brent.
 
MASSDRIVER, Try actually reading my post, not just the first few words.

I acknowledged that the court got it right for a change, and placed more blame on the 'professionals' that screwed up.

Whether or not the trust is 'wealthy' is not relevant to the legal aspects of the case, and I made no assumptions whatsoever about the the financial standing of the Trust anyway. The land wasn't 'acquired' by purchase, it was donated.
 
JBI said:
MASSDRIVER, Try actually reading my post, not just the first few words. I acknowledged that the court got it right for a change, and placed more blame on the 'professionals' that screwed up.

Whether or not the trust is 'wealthy' is not relevant to the legal aspects of the case, and I made no assumptions whatsoever about the the financial standing of the Trust anyway. The land wasn't 'acquired' by purchase, it was donated.
I'm I pretty good reader JBI.

I'll break it down in sections, show how I read it, as you tell me if my assumptions were wrong.

1."In an era of 'affluenza' (the inane notion that excessive wealth is somehow a handicap... Really?)"

Presumption that we are in a period of affluenza, the article "an" in the sentience indicating possibly more than one era. The opinion that the notion may be inane is unproven, and no reference to supporting evidence is provided. Not supplied are standards to determine what the definition of wealth, and the adjective excessive may be. The impression left on the reader is that the author believes affluenza to exist, that we currently are in an era of it, this era of affluenza may or may not be singular and and it is not a handicap inferred by the query, "Really?" (the 3 periods are duly noted for dramatic pause).

2."I have little (no?) sympathy for the developer, less for the builder and even less for whomever plotted it."

The author clearly conveys apathy for the plight of others, and the reader has no doubt the shtts given are minimal, to the point that no shtts may given at all. The overall lack of given shtts applies to the developer, the builder, and the surveyor. It may be assumed by the overall tone of the piece that the author cannot be bothered to offer up free shtts to the wealthy, possibly based on their financial ability to acquire their own.

3. "My fear is that a case like this will end up in front of the SCOTUS, who have recently abandoned the rule of law for the rule of wealth."

The author's phobia of similar cases that involve some sort of wealth is recognized. No evidence was provided in reference to cases where the rule of law has been abandoned, nonetheless the author leads the reader to believe the "Rule of Wealth" now presides over it.

Summary

The reader is left to conclude the author's opinion thus; Concern for the developer is unwarranted due to his wealth. He may have been wronged but that is fine. The builder, equally is to blame for trusting what was surveyed. The surveyor is due no empathy due to his mistake.

It is unclear if the author believes affluenza exists and is unclear on whether it is a singular or common event. The reader assumes it is not a handicap, according to inference.

The author shows an irrational fear of "cases like this" but is unclear on what they may be. Also referenced is "rule of wealth". No bibliography could be located.

Brent.

p.s. Just busting your balls. :)

Also, yes, the trust was gifted the land. A gift of wealth. The trust did not work for it, and the land has some undetermined dollar amount tied to it. SO this is not about the underdog poverty stricken plebe against the rich unscrupulous developer, it's just one well funded concern over another.
 
Top