To the editor:
Westport Zoning Bylaws are under attack by Article 39 of the Town Meeting warrant.
Article 39 seeks to amend the Town’s Zoning Bylaw Residential/Agricultural classification …
This item is available in full to subscribers.
Please log in to continue |
Register to post eventsIf you'd like to post an event to our calendar, you can create a free account by clicking here. Note that free accounts do not have access to our subscriber-only content. |
Are you a day pass subscriber who needs to log in? Click here to continue.
To the editor:
Westport Zoning Bylaws are under attack by Article 38 of the Town Meeting warrant.
Article 38 seeks to amend the Town’s Zoning Bylaw Residential/Agricultural classification definition for hundreds of parcels (5+ acres) currently being used for agricultural purposes under Ch. 61-A.
Article 38 would replace the present definition of “Agriculture” and substitute the following three new categories of allowed uses:
a. “Agri-entertainment meaning entertainment, such as a seasonal event, festival, contest, music, party, or other time-specific events and commercial enterprises….”
b. Agri-tourism means tourism designed specifically to bring the public to a farm. “Agricultural tourism shall include but not be limited to Farm-Stay programs, entertainment events on the farm, fundraising activities, and community events….”
c. “Commercial activities designed to market to and bring the public to a Farm Enterprise for a farm-related experience…”
The petitioners, Westport River Vineyards, seek to substitute a definition that suits their own business plans. No other farmers came forward to speak in support of Article 38 at the Planning Board public hearing.
The Planning Board voted not to recommend the article at Town Meeting and encouraged the petitioners to withdraw the article to provide time to improve it with their help. The petitioners choose not to accept this offer.
Article 38 contains no way for the town to measure primary vs. accessory agricultural use. How much of a farm’s income is derived from products directly produced on the parcel as primary production — growing crops or farm animals? How much income comes from products and services that are accessory uses and not products of the farm? Land set aside for agricultural use thus shifts to commercial use.
The term “commercial enterprises” is intentionally general as to mean any commercial activity. For example, a person raising a few beef cattle, hay, goats, blueberries, turnips, or field corn could host events, concerts, festivals, parties, weddings over many weeks in the summer, by right.
Under “agri-tourism” a property owner would only need to display a poster or give a short talk to allow the above “agri-entertainment” uses as an “agri-educational tourist experience.”
“Right to Farm” bylaws are intended to protect farmers from nuisance complaints and to encourage the preservation of open land that is actively in the agricultural production of crops and animals. The changes proposed by Article 38 would encourage just the opposite by stipulating that non-farm related activities will now be defined as “agri-commerce” and “agri-tourism,” and can become the principal activity of a farm.
The consequence of passage of Article 38 would be very corrosive to the fabric of the town by turning corn and hayfields into concert, party, and wedding venues. This article will remove our rights to the quiet enjoyment of outdoor life. As these “agri-entertainment” venues for “farm-related” events multiply in town, we will confront new disruptions from amplified music, crowds, traffic backups, and issues of public order.
Newton Millham
Westport