Clearly, residents in Henniker feel that if you pay your taxes you can do whatever you want on your property here in Henniker;
“Keith Demourra asked for clarification on ancillary use. He wondered if he rode his lawnmower around the yard would this be a problem. He stated that if they pay their taxes they should be allowed to do what they want on their property. Scott Dias agreed…” (read here page 3)
Everyone must understand that there are two types of Zoning Regulations, permissive and prohibitory. In fact, Henniker’s Zoning Regulation are permissive. (NH’s Office of Energy and Planning read here)
This is why in each and every zoning district, there is a Land Uses section. Here the permitted uses are enumerated. Can anyone show me where in Article V RV Village Proper Zoning District Section 133-22: A page 14, where a motocross track is mentioned as a permitted use?
In the video below both Mr.Demourra and Mr. Dias cite examples of riding a lawnmower or using a chainsaw or weed wacker as being comparable to the building and use of a motor-cross track. Clearly those activities are reasonably associated with homes and are not rare. Those activities are in essence self limiting and will not occur every day all day long and forever…at some point on a 1/2 acre lot you will have cut all the trees and removed all of the weeds.
I didn’t think that it was possible that someone would not be able to see the difference between yard work and a motocross track in terms of ancillary and accessory.
By the way Mr. Damourra and Dias…Mr. Forster was a paid in full tax payer…why is he being prohibited from doing what he wants with his property??? Odd that I have never seen nor heard either one of you support Mr. Forster’s rights??? “All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others”…”Four legs good….two legs better”….hmmm???
I find it sad that after spending over $150,000 of your tax dollars and obtaining a Supreme Court definition of ancillary and accessory uses, Chairman Blomback cannot articulate how the town’s Zoning Regulations only permits those activities that fall in the following definition;
“Consistent with the common law, the Town’s ordinance defines an accessory use as a “use subordinate and customarily incidental to the main . . . use on the same lot.” The definition of accessory use in the ordinance involves several distinct elements. See Becker v. Town of Hampton Falls, 117 N.H. 437, 440 (1977) (discussing ordinance that defined accessory uses as those that are “customarily incidental and subordina[te]” (quotation omitted)). “[I]ncidental” and “subordinate” incorporate the requirement that the accessory use be minor in relation to the primary use and that it bear a reasonable relationship to that use. Id.; see Marchand v. Town of Hudson, 147 N.H. 380, 383 (2001). “[C]ustomarily” imposes an additional requirement that the accessory use “has commonly, habitually and by long practice been established as reasonably associated with the primary . . . use” in the local area. Becker, 117 N.H. at 441 (referring to “local custom”); see Town of Windham v. Alfond, 129 N.H. 24, 29 (1986). “While the strength or degree of the customary or habitual association does not lend itself to definition by formula, and while the combination need not occur in a majority of instances of the principal use, the uses must be associated with a frequency that is substantial enough to rise above rarity.” Alfond, 129 N.H. at 29 (citation omitted).”
Therefore, all accessory activity outside of your homes on your property must be commonly, habitually and by long practice been established as reasonably associated with the primary . . . use” in the local area. And that means that the uses must be associated with a frequency that is substantial enough to rise above being rare.
Since there are no other motocross tacks in the RV Village Proper residential zone in Henniker, the track at 60 Juniper Ridge fails to meet the NH Supreme Court definition of ancillary and accessory as found in Forster v. Henniker (read here)
The Select Board refusal to uphold the NH Supreme Courts definition of accessory uses on all properties in Henniker is a dereliction of their duties. To impose the Court’s definition selectively on only one property owner Mr. Forster is discriminatory.
I make the same complaint about noise and loss of peace and tranquility that Mr. Bennett has made in the Forster case. The town sides with Mr. Bennett’s claim and refuses me the same relief…that is not only discriminatory but very suspicious!
Apparently the political power structure has their favorites…and OHB is not one of those favorites.