Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/05/2018

Home

Zoning Bulletin March 10, 2018 I Volume 12 I Issue 5 "agricultural operation" Citation: Gerald P. Zarrella Trust v. Town. of Exeter, 2018 WL 444298 (R.L 2018) RHODE ISLAND (01/16/18)—This case addressed the issue of whether, by enacting the 2014 amendment to a Rhode Island statute —subsection 4(a) of Rhode Island's Right to Farm Act, G.L. 1956 chapter 23 of title 2—the Rhode Island General Assembly expanded the definition of "agricultural operations" to include the hosting of commercial events, such that such use was not subject to a municipality's zoning control. The Background/Facts: Gerald Zarrella ("Zarrella") owned land in the Town of Exeter (the "Town"). Zarrella sought to use his farmland to host com- mercial events, including weddings for a fee. In 2011, the Town sued Zarrella to prevent him from using his farmland for such events. As a result of that legal action, the Town and Zarrella entered into an amended consent judgment that peiuianently enjoined Zarrella from "using and/or renting [his property] . . . for weddings for a fee or other commercial events." The injunction ran with the land "until such time" that its terms were "superseded by statute." According to Zarrella that time came, and the injunction was superseded, when, in 2014, the Rhode Island General Assembly amended the second sentence of subsection 4(a) of Rhode Island's Right to Farm Act, G.L. 1956 chapter 23 of title 2 (§ 2-23-4(a)). Prior to 2014, the second sentence of the statute provided that "the mixed -use of farms and farmlands for other forms of enterprise" were "recognized as a valuable and viable means of contributing to the preservation of agriculture." The 2014 amendment added a list of such mixed uses for other forms of enterprise to include, among other things, "festivals and other special events." Zarrella asserted that hosting commercial events including hosting weddings for a fee —was the sort of "other special event[ ]" that the General Assembly recognized as "a valuable and viable means of contributing to the preservation of agriculture" with its 2014 statu- tory amendment. He argued that the 2014 amendment therefore rendered the 2011 permanent injunction that prohibited his hosting weddings for a fee on his property "a nullity, green -lighting his ability to host weddings for a fee on his farmland." With that argument, Zarrella attempted to obtain from the Town a zoning certificate that would allow him to host a "commercial fundraising event" on his farmland. The Town rejected Zarrella's request for a zoning certificate. The Town maintained that the 2014 amendments to the second sentence of § 2-23-4(a) were simply a statement of policy, and not an expansion of the definition of "agricultural operations" permitted as of right under the statute. As such, the Town maintained that Zarrella's use of his farmland to host wed- dings or "commercial fundraising event[s]" was a nonagricultural operation that remained under the Town's control. Zarrella sued the Town, asking the court to make a declaration in his favor. The court denied Zarrella's request for declaratory relief, instead ruling that the 2014 amendment to § 2-23-4(a) "merely set forth a list of encouraged uses of farms and farmland, which did not preempt the town's authority to restrict nonagricultural operations such as hosting commercial events, including wed- dings for a fee." © 2018 Thomson Reuters 3