Believe me…I have been a tolerant person. I have refrained from asking for drastic measures be taken by our Select Board. I have always felt that sooner or later the Henniker voting public would eventually come to realize the entire truth about the Forster matter and the contrary opinions of one Mr. Mark Fougere.
Yesterday’s Concord Monitor article once again demonstrates that we all should pay close attention to what is being said. I hope that we all agree, PART TIME EMPLOYEES of the town of Henniker SHOULD NOT BE commenting in the press.
Questions need to be answered. First, I call your attention to a letter dated July 3, 2012 (click here to read). Mr. Fougere begins by stating that HE (an employee of the town), not the Select Board, does not concur with Mr. Forster’s (resident and member in good tax standing of Henniker’s Legislature) position on this Zoning compliance matter.
He continues on in his letter and purports to be speaking for the Select Board on this matter, “If you believe the Board of Selectman is in error in the application or interpretation of any provision of the zoning ordinance, you have the right to appeal to the Zoning Board of Adjustment in a timely fashion (within 30 days.”
ONE VERY BIG PROBLEM HERE…the Board of Selectman never held a hearing to deliberate the facts of this case nor have they ever issued a ruling in this matter!
April 27, 2016 Mr. Fougere states the following in Mr. Foster’s Conditional Use permit (CUP) application approval hearing (page 3 paragraph 9), “Mr. Fougere clarified that the state’s definition is not relevant in this case as the town voted on their own definition of Agritourism.” (click here to read)
Therefore, the town’s planning board moved forward and approved Mr. Forster’s CUP. (The CUP was voted in by the legislative body last March.) exhibit #1
When Mr. Bennett filed for a rehearing, Mr. Fougere sat silent as the Zoning Board of Adjustment’s (ZBA) discussion went on about how nothing has changed from 2012 and the actions of the town’s Planning Board should be vacated.
And when he did speak he misled the ZBA, “Motionby Ms. Laberge that there was a material change of circumstances, due to the fact that the Town adopted a new definition of agritourism. Seconded by Mr. Parker. Mr. Fougere clarified that if the motion passes, the Board will need to discuss whether the proposal is accessory; not the Planning Board’s entire decision. (page 2 draft minutes 6-15-2016.) Apparently he failed to tell the ZBA what he told the Planning Board…the town voted in it’s new definition of Agritourism.
That new definition is the basis for Mr. Forster’s current appeal. FORSTER REHEARING 2016
The total disarray of the ZBA and their comments and questions during the hearing, clearly demonstrates that they were totally unprepared to make an informative decision. Unfortunately the current draft minutes have conveniently left out comments such as, you make us read too many papers, I don”t know the differences between ancillary and accessory and my personal favorite I don’t know what I voted on before. (click here to read)
Now, the town has been sued by Mr. Bennett in Superior Court of Merrimack County, a town “official” is making statements in the press…THIS IS PREPOSTEROUS! It is more than OUTRAGEOUS behavior.
I urge you all to write to your Select Board members.