Lawdogs, I too am a lawyer and agree with your leg
Post# of 56324
Posted On: 11/07/2014 5:46:48 PM
Lawdogs, I too am a lawyer and agree with your legal non-conforming use analysis but disagree that this is the proper route for CEN Biotech to take. There will be argument that they were not using the land at the time in that manner thus the argument could fail - although I think ultimately it would be successful and, again, I agree with your analysis. The problem is, this could take a lot of time to litigate and I don't think the company could handle the time and money it would take.
I think the more appropriate route would be to apply for an emergency injunction against the town based on promissory estoppel. There was a clear promise made to CEN Biotech that is documented from the town and they were induced to build in Lakeshore. The company relied on that promise and went ahead and built according to HC specifications. Then the town went back on that promise to the detriment of the company. An emergency injunction would be a quick remedy to this zoning issue and I think they have a strong case.
A more long-term strategy could also be a tort for intentional interference with economic relations, but that, too, could take time.
EDIT: I just read your second post on the subject. I agree. Perhaps then the promissory estoppel argument can be used "in the alternative" should the company resist an injunction from the town. Both the legal non-conforming use and the promissory estoppel argument are strong arguments against an injunction from the town.
I think the more appropriate route would be to apply for an emergency injunction against the town based on promissory estoppel. There was a clear promise made to CEN Biotech that is documented from the town and they were induced to build in Lakeshore. The company relied on that promise and went ahead and built according to HC specifications. Then the town went back on that promise to the detriment of the company. An emergency injunction would be a quick remedy to this zoning issue and I think they have a strong case.
A more long-term strategy could also be a tort for intentional interference with economic relations, but that, too, could take time.
EDIT: I just read your second post on the subject. I agree. Perhaps then the promissory estoppel argument can be used "in the alternative" should the company resist an injunction from the town. Both the legal non-conforming use and the promissory estoppel argument are strong arguments against an injunction from the town.
(0)
(0)