Stephen Forster still wants to host weddings at his Christmas tree farm atop Mt. Hunger Road in Henniker, despite the state’s highest court denying him and siding with the town in a 4-1 decision last June.
After the decision came down, Forster took a different approach and organized a petition zoning article to amend the definition of agritourism under the town’s zoning regulations. His article, which specifically adds on-farm weddings and other activities to the definition, made the ballot and was approved by voters in March. It also adds “agritourism uses” under its definition of agriculture.
Now, Forster is back presenting his application to the planning board again with the hope that the amended regulations will clear his path to approval. The details of his plan were discussed at Wednesday’s planning board meeting but are still in the conceptual stages. Forster’s finalized application will be on the board’s agenda at its April 27 meeting.
But voters approved another zoning article that specifically addresses agritourism. That article, submitted by the planning board, amends the qualifications for obtaining conditional use permits under agritourism. As it reads, the amendment gives the planning board authority to issue permits while considering public safety, “neighborhood character,” protection of environmental resources and to see that “substantial negative impacts to the neighbor are avoided.”
The two provisions, which both passed with about 20 percent of Henniker’s voters participating, could present a legal quagmire for the town in planning decisions.
Henniker Planner Mark Fougere said one doesn’t necessarily trump the other in all scenarios. Each planning application would be scrutinized against the zoning regulations, and any conflicts would be brought to the town’s legal counsel. As for Forster’s proposal, Fougere doesn’t expect such a conflict to arise.
“There’s no discrepancy as far as what he wants to do,” Fougere said.
How the board will handle the decision will be seen at its next meeting.Dean Tirell, speaking with the Monitor earlier this week, expressed support for agritourism, but did not address Forster’s proposal directly.
“Agritourism is a wonderful idea,” Tirell said. “It allows farms to diversify a little bit and bring in some more income.”
As for how the board would handle discrepancies in the zoning regulations if a case came about, Tirell said that is not necessarily unusual.
“We have worked on our own proposals and definitions” of agritourism, he said. “There is always going to be a little gray line with it in town.”
Municipalities and landowners across New Hampshire continue to square off over agritourism and precisely what kind of activity falls under the term. The state Supreme Court’s decision in Forster v. Town of Henniker, whichhas been used as precedent in similar cases since last summer, reaffirmed that towns have the authority to block certain kinds of land use on privately owned property.
In Forster’s case, the court ruled that weddings are not accessory uses to a farm, and the town would need to make a special exception to allow it.
In Gilford, a dispute between neighbors has flared up in the last year and led to a series of lawsuits. On one side, the Howe family – owners of Timber Hill Farm – began to host weddings on their land looking out on Lake Winnipesaukee. But their neighbor, whose home is about 250 feet away, complained of the noise and distraction that weddings bring.
Lawmakers are trying to pass legislation that clarifies agritourism and specifically includes the term under the state’s definition of agriculture, but still gives regulation authority to municipal land use boards. The Senate okayed SB 345, and the bill is currently in the House.
(Nick Stoico can be reached at 369-3314, nstoico@cmonitor.com or on Twitter @NickStoico.)