To the editor:

In its unbylined October 26 story, “Vineyard fires back at neighbors,” the Sakonnet Times reports the most recent stratagem by Carolyn’s Sakonnet Vineyard (CSV) to steamroll Little Compton officials and citizens. However, the article fails to provide the immediate legal context for CSV’s counterclaim, which is just one element of ongoing litigation, in which CSV and the Town of Little Compton, including the Town Council, are the defendants.

What the Sakonnet Times didn’t report was that at an October 2 hearing in Newport Superior Court, which I attended as an interested citizen, Judge Brian van Couyghen denied motions filed by CSV and the Town to dismiss the Eliason/Carlson lawsuit. In fact, the judge found that the plaintiffs had a sound legal basis to proceed to trial for their own prior complaint. A hearing is set for November 6 to set a trial date.

By way of background: Plaintiffs Brian Eliason, Natalie Eliason, and Christina Carlson, neighbors and/or abutters of CSV, in early June filed their lawsuit against CSV and the Town. Their purpose was not to “vex and harass the Vineyard Defendants and to interfere with their lawful and legally protected agricultural operations,” as CSV’s recently filed counterclaim asserts. Rather, their aim is precisely to seek a binding determination by the court concerning the nature and extent of the vineyard’s “lawful and legally protected agricultural operations,” as summarized in their formal complaint:

“This is a complaint for declaratory relief against the Town of Little Compton, who, through its Town Council, approved two Entertainment Licenses for Dionysus Acquisition, LLC to conduct twenty-eight wedding and concert events, together with associated large-scale parking, at Sakonnet Vineyard in Little Compton. The Plaintiffs ask this Court to declare these licenses as invalid and unauthorized because the Town Council did not comply with the requirements of the Town’s Entertainment License Ordinance, nor did it waive those requirements for good cause. The Plaintiffs further ask this Court to declare that the proposed concerts, weddings and parking at the Sakonnet Vineyard do not constitute pre-existing lawful non-conforming uses; or in the alternative, declare that the uses proposed are an intensification of a pre-existing lawful non-conforming uses requiring a special use permit from the Little Compton Zoning Board of Review. The Plaintiffs also seek to enjoin Dionysus Acquisition. LLC from holding any concerts and weddings pursuant to the unauthorized Entertainment Licenses.”

That’s it. The plaintiffs, with whom I’m acquainted and whose advocacy efforts I’ve supported in a variety of ways, want the vineyard (and other Little Compton farmers) to succeed as viable agricultural operations, which may well include other legal and properly regulated ancillary activities. But the plaintiffs in the pending case want the vineyard to do so in accordance with all applicable laws and ordinances – as I believe many other Little Compton residents and property owners do as well.

The nub of the plaintiffs’ efforts is to seek a legal determination whether the nature and extent of some of the vineyard’s current and proposed activities—namely, concerts, weddings, and related parking—are “pre-existing lawful non-conforming uses.” That is, are they “grandfathered”? Or, if they are grandfathered, do they represent intensification of those uses that requires a special use permit from the Zoning Board of Review?

During the October 2 hearing at which Judge Van Couyghen denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss the Eliason/Carlson lawsuit, he pointed out “that the Superior Court is the only authority, as I believe you know, to make such a determination [as to pre-existing lawful non-conforming uses].” Neither Little Compton’s Town Solicitor nor the CSV attorneys contradicted the judge on this key point. In other words, the question of whether all the vineyard’s current activities are grandfathered cannot be finally and conclusively determined by, say, the Town Council, the Zoning Board of Review, or the Zoning Official. Only the Superior Court can do so.

CSV’s recent counterclaim attempts to sweep other Little Compton residents and property owners into the legal whirlpool. Your October 26 article correctly reports that the recently filed CSV counterclaim not only demands $1-million in damages from the Eliasons and Carlson for alleged “abuse of process” and “intentional interference with advantageous relations.” CVS also includes in its claim unidentified “John Does 1 through 10” (with perhaps more to be named later) who may have provided “financial support and funding” for the plaintiff’s legal efforts.

This legal tactic is a blatant attempt to chill the exercise of legally and constitutionally protected citizen rights involving a matter of general and important public concern. I have been only one among many Little Compton residents and property owners who have exercised such rights in the vineyard matter. Speaking for myself, and for no other individual or group, I have done so because I feel strongly that the precedents set with regard to the legality of activities on the vineyard property have the clear potential to affect all residents and property owners in town, not just those adjacent to or near the vineyard.

In exercising my rights, I take heart and confidence in such protections as Section 23 of Article 1 of the RI Constitution, which states that “citizens have a right in a peaceable manner to assemble for the common good, and to apply to those invested with the powers of government, for redress of grievances, or for other purposes, by petition, address, or remonstrance. No law abridging the freedom of speech shall be enacted.”

Similarly, I appreciate of the protections offered to citizens under Chapter 9-33 of the RI General Laws, “Limits of Strategic Litigation against Public Participation,” the so-called “Anti-SLAPP” law, which is expressly intended to protect citizen rights of expression, in a variety of forms, “in matters of public concern.”

Now, for the first time in this several-year saga, the vineyard itself, not the plaintiffs or the supposed John Does, will have to demonstrate the legality of their entertainment and wedding activities before a proper and disinterested legal tribunal. The prospect of addressing these issues on the legal merits, and on the basis of sworn court testimony, appears to be what CSV (and no doubt their fellow defendants the Town Council) would prefer to avoid.

The plaintiffs’ lawsuit is proceeding slowly but steadily through the courts, despite CSV’s so far unsuccessful attempts to derail it. The vineyard is now finding that the shoe is on the other foot, thanks to the brave and persistent efforts of Little Compton citizens Brian Eliason, Natalie Eliason, and Christina Carlson.

I, for one, am proud to support those efforts, whatever their outcome.

Larry Anderson

Little Compton