A revamped Stepping Stones farm and events center proposal was back before the Temple Zoning Board Thursday night, but board members continued the hearing, citing the need to consult with legal counsel on how to put together its decision.
Stepping Stones owner Isabella “Boo” Martin has been seeking permission from the town to operate a farm and events center at the site on Webster Highway since last year. She originally received informal permission from the Select Board to start offering weddings, but after complaints from abutters, the board directed Martin to other town boards, including the ZBA.
Due to the initial uncertainty, Martin had already scheduled events for last summer, and was given permission by the town to continue with the scheduled events for the duration of the calendar year. She decided in the fall to withdraw her initial application for a special exception and retain an attorney before she came back before the board.
Board Chair Deb Harling stated that the proposal had been altered, limiting the scope to only apply to the barn in which the events would be held, capping the number of events to 30 per calendar year and installing a guest maximum of 99 after discussion with the town’s fire chief.
“This change was made to address previous concerns,” Harling said.
“Boo has really proceeded in good faith throughout this process,” said Martin’s lawyer, Israel Piedra. “She’s always very eager to do what the town wanted her to do. She loves this town. She’s been here for 50 years, she just wants to use her property in a respectful manner.”
After testimony, board members tentatively agreed that the application met most of the requirements for a special exception to be granted, with some conditions. One of the “sticking points,” as Piedra called them, is the requirement that the use not negatively impact the property values of adjacent properties. Throughout the process, abutters have made the case that the disruption, specifically noise, has a detrimental impact on them.
“Our experience has been, through the past summer, that the noise that’s generated by these events will drown out the background noise that Temple feels is very important,” said abutter Alec MacMartin, citing the town’s vision statement.
Megan Carrier, an attorney for abutters George and Julie Russell, said the proximity to noise from events would drive down property values for abutting properties.
“Given the choice, would you buy a property that’s next to a wedding event center, or would you choose to buy a similar property that’s not next to a wedding event center?” she asked.
Piedra said Martin had made adjustments to try to satisfy this concern, including planning to comply with the town’s noise ordinance, prohibiting amplified sound outside and having a hard stop for such sound at 10 p.m.
“A property owner in New Hampshire has a right to use their property, as long as there’s no unreasonable use,” Piedra said.
Piedra also pointed to testimonials from neighbors who stated that the noise had not affected them, and some residents spoke on this point as well. Two nearby neighbors, neither of whom directly abut the property, stated that they had noticed no noise issues due to the weddings.
“I have been there for at least three or four events and I didn’t notice one sound,” said Pete Clemens, who added that he had bought his property knowing full well that the event center was there.
Nicole Concordia concurred, and also stated that she had lived there when the property was being used for equestrian events, at which time she said the noise was much more intrusive.
“I’m happy with the change,” she said.
Regarding the impact on property values, the majority of the board members said that they believed it could be reasonably dealt with through conditions placed on approval. A final decision was not made on the issue.
The other issue, which the board cited as their chief concern for counsel, is a setback rule that states that the special exception use should be set back 100 feet from lot lines. In this case, the lot line is that of another property owned by Martin.
Piedra argued that enforcing the setback rule in this case would go against the spirit of the ordinance.
“The purpose of the 100 foot setback is to protect the abutter, next door,” he said. “That doesn’t make any sense in this case.”
Michael Tierney, an attorney for MacMartin, said that those circumstances did not matter to the enforcement of the rule.
“It’s black and white,” he said.
Piedra stated that this “technicality” was being targeted by abutters as a way to shut down the project.
“It’s being used as a sword by abutters who are opponents of the project,” he said.
The board considered some options for approving the special exception with a condition to meet this requirement, including a lot-line adjustment, but decided to bring the matter to counsel before making a decision.
“We will forward this information to our attorney and request that he meet with us to help us formulate a decision with conditions,” said Harling.
The continued hearing will resume in the Temple Town Hall at 6 p.m. on April 21.