by Rob Rogers
Since the 1980s, as increasing urban encroachment on historic farming communities triggered a growing number of lawsuits against farmers by non-farming residents who objected to agricultural noise and odors, all fifty states have adopted “Right to Farm” statutes that shield farmers from private and public nuisance actions for their agricultural activities. But what happens when one of those new neighbors decides to convert their working farm to a farm-themed wedding venue that brings its own disruptive traffic and noise? May the wedding venue seek protection from their neighbors’ nuisance actions under the Right to Farm statutes?
On February 25th, a Florida appellate court suggested in Sheik Island Farm, Inc. v. Covington Farm, Inc. that the answer may be No when it overturned an order rejecting a neighboring horse farm’s nuisance action against the operator of a farm-themed wedding venue on land zoned only for agricultural use. By exploring exactly what kinds of businesses qualify as “farms” and related “agritourism” activities, the Florida appellate court became one of the nation’s first to decide whether businesses operating pastoral wedding venues on land zoned for agriculture are protected by Right to Farm statutes.
Like most Right to Farm laws, the Florida Right to Farm Act was adopted “to protect reasonable agricultural and complementary agritourism activities conducted on farm land from nuisance suits,” based upon the state’s recognition that such lawsuits in urbanizing areas traditionally used for farming “encourage and even force the premature removal of the farm land from agricultural use.” See Fla. Stat. § 823.14(2). The Act further establishes that “[n]o farm operation which has been in operation for 1 year or more since its established date of operation and which was not a nuisance at the time of its established date of operation shall be a public or private nuisance if the farm operation conforms to generally accepted agricultural and management practices.” See Fla. Stat. § 823.14(4)(a). The Act further requires any party alleging a nuisance action against a farm to prove “by clear and convincing evidence that the claim arises out of conduct that did not comply with state or federal environmental laws, regulations, or best management practices.” See Fla. Stat. § 823.14(4)(c).
In Sheik Island Farm, the operators of “Elegant Barn Venue,” a wedding venue with a specially built barn on land zoned for agricultural use, sought immunity under the Florida Right to Farm Act from public and private nuisance claims brought by a neighboring horse boarding business who complained about the venue’s excessive traffic and noise. In granting summary judgment rejecting the neighbor’s nuisance claims, the trial court agreed with the wedding venue that it was immune to the nuisance claims because its business met the statutory definition of an “agritourism activit[y] conducted on farm land.” But Florida’s Second District Court of Appeal disagreed and reversed on grounds that a jury could conclude that the venue did not satisfy the statutory definition of a “farm” or “agritourism activity.” The appellate court then remanded the case to allow the question to be answered at trial.
The appellate court focused on the Florida Right to Farm Act’s definitions of key terms. Although the statute did not list a weddings among the specified activities qualifying as “farm operations,” it did include activities “which occur on a farm . . . in connection with complimentary agritourism activities.” See Fla. Stat. §§ 823.14(3)(c). The act then defined “agritourism” as any “agricultural related activity consistent with a bona fide farm, livestock operation, or ranch or in a working forest which allows members of the general public . . . to view and enjoy . . . cultural, civic, [or] ceremonial” activities. See Fla. Stat. §§ 823.14(3)(a) and 570.86(1). Accordingly, although the term “agritourism” might be broad enough to include ceremonial activities like weddings, “the term ‘agritourism activities’ is limited to those that are ‘complimentary’ and ‘consistent with a bona fide farm, livestock operation, or ranch.”
Accordingly, “any consideration of complementary agritourism activities must first be predicated on there being ‘a farm’ that the activities take place upon.” The record did not include evidence concerning whether the wedding venue operator also conducted conventional farming activities on the property, even though “section 823.14(3)(d) tethers farm operations to there being a farm.” The trial court therefore needed to determine whether “Covington Farm’s property is being used to produce plants, animals, or insects useful to humans” before it could assign the wedding venue operator immunity from nuisance lawsuits under the Right to Farm Act. Although courts in other states have construed whether rural wedding venues are shielded under Right to Farm statutes from enforcement actions by local governments,[1] Sheik Island Farms is one of the nation’s first appellate opinions to consider whether Right to Farm laws immunize farm-themed wedding venues from private nuisance actions by disaffected neighbors.
As more farmers respond to diminishing profits and urban encroachment by selling their properties to owners who convert them to pastoral wedding venues, courts will be asked to resolve more disputes like these between existing farms and neighbors looking for new business opportunities. Sheik Island Farms suggests that such businesses should not assume they’ll be protected under Right to Farm statutes as agritourism businesses if they do not continue to farm their properties or otherwise comply with the definitions in Right to Farm laws.
——–
Rob Rogers is a partner with the commercial litigation law firm of Kirwin Norris, P.A.
[1] See Gerald P. Zarrella Trust v. Town of Exeter, 176 A.2d 467 (R.I. 2018) (affirming a trial court’s denial of a wedding venue owner’s declaratory judgment action seeking to nullify a municipal injunction against operating its business on agricultural land and affirming that Rhode Island’s Right to Farm Act did not afford protections to farm-themed wedding venues).
Robert L. Rogers, III
Kirwin Norris, P.A.
840 S. Denning Drive
Suite 200
Winter Park, Florida 32789
C: 407-233-5724 (preferred contact number)
O: 407-740-6600
F: 407-740-6363
E: rlr@kirwinnorris.com