LITTLE COMPTON — A Newport Superior Court judge agrees with the operators of Little Compton’s Stone House and Carolyn’s Sakonnet Vineyard that the town’s Zoning Board has no business hearing neighbors’ appeals concerning a certificate allowing ‘grandfathered’ entertainment activities at those places.

In a lengthy decision issued just before Thanksgiving, Judge Brian P. Stern ruled that “a zoning board lacks jurisdiction to hear appeals from non-binding zoning certificates brought by neighboring property owners because such property owners cannot establish that they are aggrieved parties.”

In response to the decision, the Little Compton town council is meeting in special executive session at 3 p.m., Tuesday, Dec. 6, to discuss implications of the judge's ruling.

"The judge's decision is well-reasoned. He's a very brilliant jurist, and he did a very nice job explaining it to everybody. It was very, very helpful," said Town Solicitor Richard Humphrey.

"I am delighted — we had anticipated the decision, and in fact had submitted a memorandum to the court along the same lines many months ago," Mr. Humphrey said. "The judge's decision is not yet ripe for appeal, but I imagine the other parties are looking for avenues of relief or review as to what they'll do. The town is committed to being fair and open with all parties."

The case landed in Superior Court after town Building Official William Moore issued Stone House owner Little Compton a zoning certificate on May 2, 2016, stipulating that, while Stone House is in a residential zone, it has historically provided “entertainment (and) gatherings … including weddings and similar events.” These have happened less than 45 times a year and drawn no more than 175 people. He added that the use of temporary tents is consistent with those historical uses.

Neighbor Elizabeth Clive appealed that decision and, on June 15, the Little Compton Zoning Board concluded that it had the authority to hear her appeal.

Meanwhile, “across town, Dionysus,” owner of Carolyn’s Sakonnet Vineyard also sought and received a zoning certificate to confirm grandfathered uses including entertainment and “larger wedding type functions.”

Brian and Natalie Eliason, neighbors of the vineyard, similarly appealed to the zoning board.

In July, both Little Compton Resorts and Dionysis asked Superior Court for a judgment that the Zoning Board lacks jurisdiction to hear such appeals. In response, the Zoning Board and neighbors asked the court to toss out Little Compton Resorts’ complaint.

“As all of these motions raise common legal issues,” the court decides them simultaneously, the judge said.

Noting minor differences in state and Little Compton rules, Judge Stern wrote that the state Supreme Court has decided that zoning certificates are advisory, but “not legally binding … (which) ultimately supports the conclusion that the issuance of a zoning certificate may not be appealed to a zoning board.”

“A property owner sending a complaint to a zoning enforcement officer likely does so out of frustration towards a neighboring property,” Judge Stern wrote. “This Court is certainly sympathetic with those property owners who only seek to resolve such frustrations. However, this Court is constrained in instances where the complained-of uses by the neighboring property are of ‘grandfathered’ status. Our Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that the establishment of nonconforming uses falls within the Superior Court’s exclusive jurisdiction … In addition, the General Assembly has limited the power granted to zoning enforcement officers to issue only advisory documents acknowledging that certain uses are legally nonconforming.”

And since that zoning certificate is non-binding, the neighbors have not been “aggrieved (so) lack standing to bring an appeal to the zoning board.”

“For the foregoing reasons, this Court grants Little Compton Resorts’ requested declaration and declares that a zoning board lacks jurisdiction to hear appeals from non-binding zoning certificates brought by neighboring property owners because such property owners cannot establish that they are aggrieved parties under the Enabling Act.”

Reaction by lawyers for the Stone House and vineyard neighbors was not long in coming.

"The important thing from the perspective of my clients, Elisabeth Stone and the approximately 600 persons that comprise Preserve Little Compton," said their lawyer, William Landry, "is that the Court has confirmed that the Superior Court itself would have the authority to review those issues."

"More importantly," he said, "George Medeiros, the new zoning official in Little Compton, has issued an opinion to the Town Council ... to the effect that the Stone House’s proposed activities represent an 'intensification' of the lawful pre-existing nonconforming use of the property, and cannot take place absent a special use permit from the Zoning Board. At the moment, that opinion is of greater importance than the Superior Court Decision."

"The practical affect of Justice Brian Stern’s decision is that a building official effectively has the last word as to whether your neighbor is violating zoning; such is the case for Brian and Natalie Eliason," said Christopher A. D'Ovidio, representing the Eliasons, who reside east of Sakonnet Vineyard, across the waters of Watson Reservoir, and had complained about the noise and lights from the concerts and weddings at the vineyard.

At a recent Little Compton Town Council meeting, Council President Robert Mushen read aloud to the audience in the chambers a Nov. 13 written opinion of the town Zoning Official Medeiros, stating his opinion that the winery business at the vineyard is allowed as a matter of right, "but the weddings and concerts are not accessory uses to, and required for, the operation of the principal use, and therefore are not allowed."

Lawyers for the Stone House did not respond to a request for comment. Nicole Benjamin, representing defendant Dionysus Acquisition LLC (Carolyn's Sakonnet Vineyard), said, "Because certain aspects of this litigation are still pending, we cannot offer specific comment on the Court's decision at this time."