Letter: Stone House has only itself to blame for wedding woes

Posted 8/3/17

To the editor:

Gentlemen, I am counsel to Preserve Little Compton, and represented the interests of a large number of Sakonnet Point neighborhood residents in the Newport Superior Court litigation …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

Log in

Register to post events


If you'd like to post an event to our calendar, you can create a free account by clicking here.

Note that free accounts do not have access to our subscriber-only content.

Day pass subscribers

Are you a day pass subscriber who needs to log in? Click here to continue.


Letter: Stone House has only itself to blame for wedding woes

Posted

To the editor:

Gentlemen, I am counsel to Preserve Little Compton, and represented the interests of a large number of Sakonnet Point neighborhood residents in the Newport Superior Court litigation involving wedding receptions at the Stone House.  The media campaign being run by the Stone House owners/operators ("IDC") does not accurately portray the basis or substance of the Court's rulings.

It is misleading - and unfair - for IDC's Kevin Vendituoli to suggest that the disaster that has occurred for families planning weddings at the Stone House is somehow the court’s fault, or the town’s fault, or the neighbors’ fault. It is also misleading for him to suggest that the court’s interim order precluding further special events, including wedding receptions, at The Stone House without a license and without required zoning permits is attributable to a “minor” problem related to a parking lot, or some other trivial issue. 

 Judge Van Couyghen heard testimony and received exhibits and briefs on this matter over several weeks.  He gained a full and fair understanding of the relevant facts, including detailed accounts of the manner in which the Stone House property, which is located in a residential zoning district, has been used for commercial purposes since the 1950’s.  His primary task was to determine whether The Stone House owners’ proposed wedding activities for this season - which involved 26 outdoor receptions with amplified entertainment supported by parking in the yards of two neighboring houses- constituted an “intensification” of the lawfully established “grandfather” rights associated with the property. Those rights, the court determined, must be based on the manner in which the property was being used on May 13, 1968, when the Little Compton Zoning Ordinance was adopted. The evidence was that, as of that time, there were six weddings conducted in a year, all of which were held indoors inside the barn, with all of the parking being accommodated on-site.

 The Stone House owners contended that they should have been granted a license by the Town Council for the 2017 season (which they first applied for in October of 2016) without having to get relief from the Zoning Board . They claimed that what they were proposing to do was consistent with the historic - “grandfathered”- scope and intensity of the use of the property for special events.  The court concluded that they were wrong, and that they had no reasonable likelihood of success of prevailing on that point. The court found that the Stone House’s proposed wedding receptions represented an intensification of the grandfathered use of the property, and required zoning relief. The court found as follows:  “As it relates to outdoor amplified entertainment, this Court finds that there is insufficient evidence at this time to establish that outdoor amplified entertainment existed at the property prior to the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance…. The [Stone House owners] have not proved that outdoor amplified entertainment is a legally preexisting nonconforming use and, as a result, [it] constitutes an unauthorized expansion which is prohibited without zoning relief. [They] have failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits on this issue.”

The court also found that the property lacks lawful parking to safely support the proposed number of attendees. It found that the “grandfathered” use of the property involved parking on site that cannot now be replicated based on changes made to the property (including an underground leaching field), and that the Stone House’s proposed alternative plans for parking were not lawful, and  required zoning relief. The court also found that the illegal parking and traffic circulation arrangements have resulted in traffic safety issues, including blockage of emergency access routes for fire and safety vehicles. The court concluded that the major diminution of parking on-site, as well as modifications to the barn that render it infeasible for conducting most wedding receptions, “represents a change of use that greatly affects the suitability of the Stone House as a multi-use special event venue.”.  The Court further concluded  that, “[R]esolution of these issues before the Little Compton Zoning Board of Review [is] fundamental to conducting any special events at the Stone House.”

 The court found that the Stone House owners were advised by the zoning officer (in writing) as far back as November of 2016 that they needed zoning relief in order to proceed with wedding receptions in the 2017 season.  They were also advised by the Town Council that far back - and again in February, and again in April - that they would not qualify for a license to conduct such receptions during the 2017 season unless they secured relief from the zoning board.  Inexplicably, the Stone House owners failed to seek such relief.  Kevin Vendituoli admitted in his testimony that they failed to apply to the zoning board as requested.  In contrast, the court found that other applicants for licenses for the 2017 season took advantage of the opportunity to address and resolve their zoning and safety code issues before the season arrived.

 My clients proposed - as far back as the spring of 2016 - to support the Stone House owners in applying to the Zoning Board for relief that would have provided suitable indoor space for events for 2017.  They declined. During the Fall of 2016 and early 2017, both Preserve Little Compton and town officials repeatedly urged them to proceed before the Zoning Board toward a solution to these issues well before the season arrived, so as to avoid a “fire drill” at the last minute.  These requests went arrogantly unheeded, and the “fire drill” is underway. Instead of seeking the requested zoning relief, they waited until the end of May to file their lawsuit, essentially “betting the bank” that the Court would rescue them from their legal inability to accommodate the families they had contracted with for weddings. This could all have been avoided.

 As the court noted in the decision, Kevin Vendituoli admitted in his hearing testimony that his company has been operating and conducting weddings and wedding receptions on the property without a license all season.

 As regards the lack of regard the Stone House owners (‘IDC”)had for their customers, the court made the following finding: “ The Court notes that [the Stone House owners] were aware of the [Town Council’s] concern regarding expansion of a legal nonconforming use in November 2016 at the latest. Mr. Mataronas [Town Council member] testified that he had notified Mr. Ventituoli before and after his first application was filed that there were problems with the Stone House’s 2017 entertainment license. There was also a negative opinion from the zoning official which recommended zoning relief. That may have explained why [IDC] asked for a continuance in November before the Town Council and withdrew their first application on December 8, 2016. It does not explain why [IDC] failed to take timely action to address the Town’s concerns. [IDC] failed to take any…actions until the wedding season was imminent. Also, [IDC’s wedding coordinator] Ms. DeCosta testified  [that], as of the time of her testimony [June 12, 2017], IDC had not taken any steps to notify the potential [wedding] participants of the possible cancellation due to IDC’s failure to obtain an entertainment license from the Town. The Court finds [IDC’s] delay in action was a major contribution to any harm they now face…… [IDC] alleges financial harm to their reputation if weddings are not allowed to go forward. As expressed above, it appears to this Court that [IDC’s] inaction and failure to take timely action are predominant contributors to their [situation]…In addition,[IDC] has failed to put forth meritorious reasons associated with their course of conduct in this case.(Decision, pgs. 39,40,41)…..”…On the other hand, [the Town] has been prevented [by IDC’s conduct] from enforcing Town ordinances associated with health, safety and general welfare of the public. This has crippled the Town’s ability to perform its police powers, which is essential to an orderly society.”

William R. Landry

The writer is an attorney with Blish & Cavanagh, LLP

Providence

2024 by East Bay Media Group

Barrington · Bristol · East Providence · Little Compton · Portsmouth · Tiverton · Warren · Westport
Meet our staff
Jim McGaw

A lifelong Portsmouth resident, Jim graduated from Portsmouth High School in 1982 and earned a journalism degree from the University of Rhode Island in 1986. He's worked two different stints at East Bay Newspapers, for a total of 18 years with the company so far. When not running all over town bringing you the news from Portsmouth, Jim listens to lots and lots and lots of music, watches obscure silent films from the '20s and usually has three books going at once. He also loves to cook crazy New Orleans dishes for his wife of 25 years, Michelle, and their two sons, Jake and Max.