To the editor:

Dear Selectmen,

This letter is written in regards to Article 38 Amendment for “Agri-tourism” language that was voted to be embedded in the already existing “Right To Farm” Law.

The purpose of this letter to the Board of Selectmen, Planning Board and Zoning Board, is to discuss how you handled this matter at Town Meeting. My due process and reasonable request to wait a few months with greater input was denied, which was a great disappointment to me and many others.

Many voiced that this should be worked out over a few months to keep the abutters’ rights protected. You did not postpone the amendment, but pushed it forward. As an abutter to a large farm, I should have been directly notified of this change in use that the “agri-tourism” will precipitate. As an elected official, your work is to represent all the taxpayers. By not respecting my rights as a major abutter of nearly 900 feet, I feel is a gross injustice.

The amended Article #38 has changed the language of “agriculture” to “agri-tourism,” bringing with it an open gate that will result in the following: increased noise, transported non-neighbor population increase, concerts, music, electronic speakers, events, various seasonal festivals, parties, weddings etc. The potential to disturb the quiet enjoyment of my property is going to be amplified at every music event.

The history of communications with the winery over 26 years has proven to me that I cannot trust the Russells’ actions. The beginning of last March they held a “meet and inform” gathering to let the neighbors know that “they would be decreasing the number of events, maybe two per month” — Rob Russell quote. And hire a “speaker sound specialist” to check the noise level, and to not exceed acceptable levels. Two months went by, no testing the sound decibel levels. A message recently,before Town Meeting informed me that they would come in 6-8 weeks possibly.

Now none of this matters since the actions through lawyer Brian Corey, who was hired by the winery to design the language of the amendment. The purpose is to go around any existing rules and do whatever they want to have music, sell, wine and beer and food (not grown on farm). It has become obvious to me this past week, by stumbling upon the promotion through the internet on Westport Winery’s plan to discuss Article #38, and, changes to language. The winery has gone around the Westport Zoning Board, the Planning Board and Selectmen, by the adjusted wording and omissions of complaint process. The #38 Right To Farm Law now fits their (winery) business model criteria. Music, concerts, events, parties will be increased. This is an “entertainment” proposal, not agricultural.

Mr. Bob Russell said, “We need to bring the public to the winery in order to sell our wine, we only make 5% with a distributor.” This is a business model, not agricultural, that uses music as a vehicle to attract buyers. This is not educational, but, entertainment. No other farmer is holding events for 300-plus, only the Russell are.

If the selectmen had carefully compared the 2005 Westport Right to Farm Article #38 weeks before the Town Meeting, to the new one drawn up by the winery in their amendment, it would have been clear to see the language’s manipulation for the benefit of one. The entire 2005 #38 Article, gives every real farmer the right to farm and operate without being encumbered unjustly, allows farm stand, hayrides and more with 25% of the product grown.

The Buzzards Bay Brewery does not grow any plants used in the beer process. The brewery is separate from the winery according to Bob Russell when he was asked at the meeting May 3, 2016. Should not the Selectmen and Agriculture Commission investigate this oversight? Should not the criteria for an agricultural designation follow the Massachusetts state laws and Westport’s? (25% of the farmers grown produce is to be used in the product to earn this distinction.)

You have done a great disservice to myself and the Howe family. We are the two major abutters in the closest proximity. Not having any language to protect us from noise and establishing a “complaint process” is a gross oversight on you for pushing this ahead last night before the language and democratic process were in place to protect all parties involved.

Annie C. Cloutier

Westport