Hi 28° | Lo 4°

Editorial: Agritourism law needs clarification

When dairy farmer Max Yasgur allowed promoters to use his land to host a concert, a half-million people showed up. History, musical and otherwise, was made. The year was 1969 and the town was Woodstock, N.Y. Could that be what a majority of the members of the Henniker Zoning Board of Adjustment were really worried about when they voted to forbid Henniker tree farmer Stephen Forster from hosting weddings, reunions and other commercial events on his tree farm atop Mount Hunger?

Though small specialty and hobby farms are increasing, New Hampshire has steadily been losing its large farms. Six of the state’s dairy farms ceased operation last year and 10 the year before. Orchards, too, continue to fall to development. To succeed, many farms need to find an additional way to use their land to generate income. When they succeed, the fields stay mowed, the land remains undivided and the rural nature of New Hampshire remains intact.

That is the backdrop for the debate in Henniker, which like most such disputes, pits a farmer who wants to conduct a commercial business on his property against neighbors who object to the actual or potential nuisance that additional noise and traffic can create.

In this case, it is Forster, who wants to support his farm and earn his keep by hosting weddings, against neighbors who object to allowing additional traffic and noise created by a business operation in a rural, residential zone. Historically, Forster has hosted only a handful of events per year, but the quality of his website raised suspicions that he was about to expand his wedding and gift shop business, and neighbors complained.

We’ll leave aside the debate over whether Forster’s wedding business predates Henniker’s 1987 zoning law and is thus grandfathered as well as the question of whether complaints of excessive noise are justified. Instead, we will focus on the state law that sanctions “agritourism” as a way to keep farms in business. That law, it appears, may be in need of clarification in order to settle disputes and keep them out of the courts.

The zoning board and some of Forster’s neighbors point to the law, which defines agritourism as a permitted agricultural activity in which visitors come for the purpose of “eating a meal, making overnight stays, enjoyment of the farm environment, education on farm operations, or active involvement in the activity of the farm which ancillary to the farm operation.” State Agriculture Commissioner Lorraine Merrill submitted a letter declaring that hosting weddings was permitted under the agritourism law and that many farms did so. Jane Presby of Concord’s Dimond Hill Farm and Tim Bassett of Hopkinton’s Gould Hill Farm told the board members that their farms regularly hosted weddings and other events without complaints from neighbors. We’re confident that could occur on Mount Hunger as well.

At the heart of the Henniker dispute is the question of whether Forster’s wedding business is, indeed, “ancillary” to his Christmas tree business, which is relatively small. Without sales figures that Forster hasn’t, and shouldn’t, provide, it’s impossible to say. Nor does current revenue necessarily suggest what will happen in the future. The question of whether farm-related agritourism grows to be bigger than the farming component should largely be irrelevant. The goal of the law is to keep farms in operation, and lawmakers should rewrite the law to reflect that by eliminating its “ancillary” component. It’s conceivable that someone could put a tomato plant on a plot of land, call it a farm, cite the agritourism law, and try to build a concert venue like Gilford’s Meadowbrook behind it. But if that happens, lawmakers could more specifically define what it means to be a farm, and do it in ways that don’t depend on what provides its main source of income.

Legacy Comments4

Live Free or Die unless you live in liberal nanny state Henniker

I was on the planning board when the owners across the road were subdividing their property. As it was well pointed out that road is one of the last ones in the town plowed when it snows due to it being one of the highest points in Henniker. Heading to the West it is a steep one lane down hill dirt road several miles long with deep gulleys on each side with many twists and turns. The residents have to walk a mile to get to the nearest point a school bus will go to pick them up. In the opposite direction it is also a dirt road and it is also steep and winding. When you get to the tar road the road is extremely steep with slopes of an 8% to 20% grade and at the top of the grade you are above the top of Pats Peak. The very first question is "Who is responsible if a driver gets hurt going to or from this location because a lot of people drink at weddings and GPS units are notorious for sending people on the shortest route which may be a class VI fire road." "Who is responsible is someone takes a wrong turn and gets stuck or a medical emergency arises". What happens in a prolonged "mud season? As all the real estate adds say "Location , location , location.

apparently...using your logic Henniker should not have allowed any development on that road...period. What happens when the current residents have a medical emergency? Sounds like you want the nanny state to dictate. He must have a great location for his farm and the argitourism activities that he wishes to conduct under the statute. Sound like this guy Forster has a whopper of a civil rights suit. Minutes on line indicate that this ZBA wants to restrict free trade.

"it’s conceivable that someone could put a tomato plant on a plot of land, call it a farm, cite the agritourism law, and try to build a concert venue like Gilford’s Meadowbrook behind it." Absolutely false! No construction of any facility could be completed without Town Planning Board approval. Nice try...scaring the public like that. Fact is, as I read the Forster story...he has not built any structure on his property. Problem in Henniker is the board is trying to prohibit economic activity. It seems that Henniker's ZBA feels that farms are not commercial enterprises. Farmers should just shut up and be good little produce makers and take whatever price the market gives them. God forbid those farmers should become the masters of their own destiny and sell directly to the public from their farms where they can set their market price. NH's Farm Viability Task Force report in 2007 is a great place to start. Maybe the Henniker ZBA should actually read it..instead of saying they did.

Post a Comment

You must be registered to comment on stories. Click here to register.