Planning Board to Agricultural Committee: Review Proposal

Residents, farmers, lawyers and community members alike took the podium at the Planning Board meeting at Town Hall Tuesday to discuss the topic of new definitions for agriculture.

The center of contention is the definition of "agriculture" and the request to insert the definition of "farm-promotion accessory- use" into the Portsmouth Zoning Ordinance.

After hearing from numerous speakers, the Planning Board decided on a motion to review the language of the proposed definitions, instructing the Portsmouth Agriculture Committee  to meet and revise them.

The proposal comes from the Portsmouth Agricultural Committee.

Gary Crosby, assistant town planner, said that, about eight or nine months ago, the Portsmouth Agricultural Committee was "revived."

The committee consists of a number of local farmers who in their free time gathered to suggest necessary amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to give Portsmouth farms the tools they need to survive in the 21^st century.

Crosby presented the new definitions to the board and community members present. During the meeting, Crosby said that the re-definition is an effort to bring local policies in better compliance with state policies.

As the last item on the agenda, of what became a nearly four-hour meeting, community members sustained energy as they debated language, legalese and consequence. An audience of around 40 attendees often cheered, clapped for speakers.

Attorney Laurent L. Rousseau represented two Portsmouth residents that opposed the ordinance. Rousseau said that based on about 20 past cases, it has become Rhode Island case-law that accessory uses must be "secondary and clearly incidental" to the main use of the farm.

"You should not approve this ordinance because A. it's illegal and B. it's bad zoning," Rousseau said.

Chairman of the Portsmouth Agricultural Committee, Steve Cotta, spoke to the board, welcoming community members to join the board with their suggestions.

Cotta said what Rousseau says is illegal is being done in other parts of the country.

The ordinance proposes to include the new definition of farm-accessory uses to "alternative marketing strategies, public events and activities and hospitality services."

Whether Portsmouth will join in this current agricultural trend, such as allowing farms to host weddings, was up for debate.

Many voices of the evening claimed that Portsmouth is behind the curve on this trend. Middletown, for example, has adopted this farm-accessory definition.

Conversely, one concerned resident called for autonomy saying, "I don't live in Middletown—I live in Portsmouth," she said. "That was a choice my husband and I made."

Yet, it was not a matter of residents versus farmers. Not all residents opposed the new definitions.

Some said allowing accessory uses was integral for the survival of small and big farms alike. Others claimed that farming is not in danger in Rhode Island. 

Rhode Island Center for Agricultural Promotion and Education Executive Director Stuart Nunnery said that similar actions are being implemented and replicated by farms all across the country.

"Suburban sprawl is the greatest threat to farms—I've never heard that farms are the greatest threat to suburban sprawl," Nunnery said.

One local farmer, a man who has lived in Portsmouth for 10 years, stood up and told the board that the because the definition calls for a special permit for "farm-accessory uses," which includes "pick -your-own," it will affect his livelihood.

The farmer uses many methods of blueberry production, such as road-side stands and drying and selling blueberries on eBay to make a living.

 "You have to hustle—that's how modern farming is," the local farmer said.

Concerned residents were also a strong voice at the meeting. Their concern was how these "accessory-uses" could change the quality of life in their community.

Traffic, loud "music festivals," potential drunk driving from weddings and parties, were all concerns.

One concerned resident asked the question "Who benefits?" from this decision. She called for a co-existence between farmers and residents.

Many member of the board expressed the belief that the ordinance was not ready to be voted on.  A member of the board called for refined language and more polling of the community.

Crosby said this is only the "first crack at it" and hopes that they will ultimately arrive at a language that will accommodate everyone.