Eastbayri.com

LITTLE COMPTON — A three-way legal dispute about the location of a barn, and whether horses on a property is an “agricultural” use of land, has two neighbors in Little Compton and the Little Compton Agricultural Conservancy Trust (LCACT) all heading to court next month.

Initiating the lawsuit filed December 23 are Richard Rudick and his wife Ann, who don’t like what they see outside the south-facing windows and the deck of their home. It’s a 33’ x 60’ two-story partially completed horse barn that’s just across a stone wall denoting their southern property line.

“In fact, “ Mr. Rudick said, “the new structure, which is sort of in our face, will block most of the view over the pasture to the south ... The barn shouldn’t be there — it’s 50 feet upwind of me.”

The barn belongs to their neighbors to the south and west, Ruth Hough and her husband Robert Compton. It’s half-built since procedural irregularities in the permitting process brought construction to a halt in mid-December. Wooden support posts stand awaiting second-story framing. Next to the structure is a large pile of dirt from the excavation for the barn’s foundation.

The Rudicks bought their square patch of land, which has a house, garage, and garden shed, at 100 Swamp Road in the fall of 2004, and occupy it intermittently during the summer and when they aren’t at their residences in New Jersey or Florida.

Last fall, Ms. Hough and Mr. Compton moved in next door from Maryland, and brought their three horses (including her horse “Duke” and his “Goliath”) with them.Their property, 10 Meadow Lane, borders the Rudick property on the south and west sides.

How it started

Almost two-thirds of the Hough/Compton land, including where their home, an old barn, the half-built barn, and some fields to the east of the home are located, has been subject since 2005 to conservation restrictions intended to preserve the land for agricultural uses, a legacy created by Leonard B. Colt, who then owned the property and deeded development rights to LCACT. Under the deed, LCACT manages the uses of the property (Efforts by the Times to obtain comment from the LCACT chairman were unsuccessful).

When Ms. Hough and Mr. Compton sought to buy the land last year from Mr. Colt, they were required by the conservation restrictions in the deed to get permission for their intended use of the property from LCACT.

On June 13, Ms. Hough wrote to LCACT, saying, “before we purchase the property, we would like written approval from the LCACT that we may develop these lots for our intended use.”

She said, “We understand the land is to be used for agricultural purposes which includes the raising of livestock. Our intended use is to raise horses which we believe fits within the agricultural definition.” To provide care and shelter for the horses, she said she and Mr. Compton intended to construct “fencing for paddocks, shelters/run-in sheds for horses,” and water lines and power.

LCACT minutes for June 13 refer to Ms. Hough and Mr. Compton as “potential buyers” of the property, and state that the owner (Mr. Colt) supports their proposal.

The minutes add that the LCACT “discussed the term agriculture as it pertains to this property,” and concluded that “the definition of agriculture, relative to the Trust,” and as applied to the property in question, “does include horses.”

The LCACT voted unanimously (6-0) to approve the requested use and construction of three shelters and other improvements “for the purpose of pasturing horses.”

Four months later, after an inspection of the old barn on the property revealed the need for significant repairs, Ms. Hough went back to the LCACT seeking permission to build a new barn. The building inspector had denied a permit for a new barn, since LCACT managed development rights to the land.

Though her request wasn’t formally on the LCACT agenda, Ms. Hough asked it for approval to build a barn on the property. The trust’s minutes for its Oct. 5 meeting say that the trust “previously approved the barn as it falls under agriculture in this case,” and instructed trust member William Richmond “to write a letter to building inspector.”

The building permit was granted on Oct. 12, and barn construction began on Oct. 13, Ms. Hough said. With all apparent approvals in place and barn construction underway, Ms. Hough and Mr. Compton moved to Little Compton in October.

In a recent interview, Ms. Hough said their offer to buy the Colt property “was contingent on our ability to have horses,” and “we made sure we did everything we were supposed to do or we would never have bought the property.”

Rudick position

Barn construction by the stone wall got Mr. Rudick’s attention.

In December, he appealed the granting of the permit for building the barn to the Little Compton Zoning Board of Review. And he won.

After a Dec. 21 hearing, the zoning board concluded that the barn had never been approved by the Trust. In a footnote, the zoning board said it “did not address the issue of whether the raising and stabling of horses on the subject property is agricultural.” Construction of the barn was promptly halted.

On Dec. 23, Mr. Rudick and his wife filed suit against the LCACT, Ms. Hough and Mr. Compton.

The suit argues that “stabling and maintaining horses for private recreational use is not a permitted use” of LCACT-managed property. It seeks a permanent injunction against the barn or any similar structure.

Mr. Rudick says he and his wife have no objection to agricultural use of the land, but said that “recreational horseback riding,” which is what he says Ms. Hough and Mr. Compton have in mind, is not an “agricultural” use of the land. “To me,” he says, “an equestrian activity is not the same as a working farm, and working farms are what the Ag Trust is supposed to support.”

Of the LCACT approvals, Mr. Rudick (himself a lawyer) said, “The Ag Trust is supposed to follow the laws. I feel they let me down, Ms. Hough and Mr. Compton down, and the community down. They had a duty to consider the implications of what they were doing. “

Another concern expressed by Mr. Rudick relates to the estimated $25,000 in transfer taxes he says paid to the LCACT. “When we bought our house seven years ago, I was surprised to find that I had to pay a substantial tax for the benefit of the Ag Trust. I have never paid a tax more cheerfully,” he said.

“I would have been less cheerful if I had thought that I was also being forced to support a hobby such as recreational horseback riding. Our hope is that as a result of this suit, land for which the development rights have been deeded to the Ag Trust will only be used for true agricultural purposes,” he said.

A court hearing is set for March 2 in Superior Court in Newport.