The Rhode Island Condominium Act (the “Act”) prohibits discrimination through local law towards condominiums. “A zoning, subdivision, constructing code, or other real estate law, ordinance or regulation may not prohibit the condominium form of possession or impose any requirement upon a condo which it’d now not impose upon a bodily same development underneath a distinctive form of possession, or in any other case alter the advent, governance, or life of the rental shape of ownership” (R.I.G.L. 34-36.1-1.06). Unfortunately, discrimination in opposition to the condominium shape of ownership has been common in Rhode Island.
There are many one-of-a-kind sorts of residences that have been evolved as or converted into condominiums. More traditional sorts of condominium possession encompass residential, workplace, retail, and industrial gadgets. Other no longer so ordinary tasks encompass residential, business, and commercial land best gadgets; parking masses; boat doctors; time-shares; and seaside cabanas. Many declarants have skilled discrimination towards the condominium shape of possession. In the past, some towns and towns within Rhode Island had to begin with refused to document declarations of condominiums thereby preventing the creation of condominiums. The hassle is possibly a remember of misunderstanding that a rental is merely a form of possession rather than a preference to discriminate. Rhode Island case history demonstrates that this hassle arises extra frequently inside the less usual condominiums types (e.G. Parking masses, stepped forward land unit tasks and prison non-conforming homes). A range of Rhode Island instances help the premise that discrimination through neighborhood municipalities isn’t always uncommon.
The metropolis of South Kingstown attempted to prevent the introduction of a automobile parking space apartment. The count number became litigated. In the case of McConnel v. Town of South Kingstown, the courtroom held that a conversion of a parking zone into character gadgets was now not difficulty to the city of South Kingstown’s law as a subdivision (See 543 A.Second 249; 1998 R.I. Lexus 103). In the equal be counted the Town tried to prevent the formation of a retail apartment. The courtroom nicely held that the conversion of a legally non-conforming multi-unit retail belongings does now not constitute a subdivision of actual assets nor is it a “use” which can be regulated pursuant to the Town’s zoning ordinances (See 1987 R.I. Super. LEXIS 163).
The Town of Westerly attempted to restriction the creation of a seaside cabana condo. The Rhode Island Superior Court held that Westerly zoning board improperly introduced a condition “that the shape of owners of seaside cabana condominiums will be through club only not through man or woman ownership as in condominium ownership.” The courtroom well concluded that “to limit a shape of belongings possession inside the hopes of curing a likely parking problem is absolutely an errors of law” (See 1991 R.I. Super LEXIS 198).
The new launch condo 2020 of Coventry tried to use its subdivision guidelines in the case of Coventry v. Glickman. The court docket nicely held that a prison non-conforming parcel of land which become stepped forward by using the federal government with thirty-two unmarried-own family houses could be offered personally and have been not subject to the Town’s subdivision rules (See 429 A.Second 440; 1981 R.I. LEXIS 1142).
The metropolis of Westerly attempted to save you the proper formation of a lodge condo. In the case of Westerly v. Waldo, the courtroom properly held that a motel could be converted to a apartment shape of possession. (524 A.2nd 117; 1987 R.I. LEXIS 471)
All of the above defined cases describe times where declarants of condominiums have been compelled to litigate so as to simply use the statutorily authorized rental shape of ownership. Hopefully, thru schooling and a higher expertise of the condo shape of ownership there may be fewer boundaries inside the formation of condominiums with out the necessity of pricey litigation.
The author of this article, Richard E. Palumbo, Jr. Is a member of the Rhode Island Bar, the Massachusetts Bar, and the Federal Bar. Richard is a common seminar lecturer and speaker concerning various troubles regarding Condominium Law. The Law Offices of Richard Palumbo is a tremendously targeted company concentrating on the subsequent associated areas of regulation: actual estate regulation (including rental regulation); commercial enterprise law; and property planning (wills, trusts and probate).