Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/05/2018

Home

March 10, 2018 I Volume 12 I Issue 5 Zoning Bulletin Zarrella appealed. DECISION: Judgment of superior court affirmed. The Supreme Court of Rhode Island also agreed with the Town, holding that the 2014 General Assembly amendments to the second sentence of § 2- 23-4(a) was a statement of policy —setting forth a list of encouraged activities deemed "valuable and viable" with respect to "contributing to the preservation of agriculture" —and "would not and could not expand the definition of [as -of - right] agricultural operations." In so holding, the court analyzed the statutory language, finding it "clear and unambiguous," and thus ascribing the "plain and ordinary meaning of the words of the statute." The first sentence of § 2-23-4(a) defined "agricultural operations" to include "any commercial enterprise that has as its primary purpose horticulture, viticulture, viniculture, floriculture, forestry, stabling of horses, dairy farming, or aquaculture, or the raising of livestock, including for the production of fiber, furbearing animals, poultry, or bees . . . ." And, again, with the 2014 amendments, the second sentence, of § 2-23-4(a) listed examples of mixed uses of farmland recognized as "valuable and viable means of contributing to the preservation of agriculture." The court concluded that there was "no dispute" that the hosting of a wed- ding for a fee was a "commercial activity" that did not fall under the "agricul- tural operations" enterprises set forth in the first sentence of § 2-23-4(a). The court also concluded that the hosting of a wedding for a fee was not an "agri- cultural operation" by virtue of the language contained in the second sentence of § 2-23-4(a). The court explained that even if hosting weddings for a fee fell within the ambit of the second sentence of the statute, that sentence was only "aspirational" "a statement of policy preference" —and not "definitional." Such a statement of policy preference did not, concluded the court, transform the nonagricultural use of a wedding for a fee into an "agricultural operation" allowed by right under the statute. Finding that hosting weddings for a fee was an activity that fell outside the statutory definition of "agricultural opera- tions," the court concluded that it was a "nonagricultural" activity that was subject to the town's control. Thus, the court found that Zarrella remained bound by the 2011 injunction that enjoined him from using his farmland "for weddings for a fee or other commercial events." 4 ©2018 Thomson Reuters