Gravel Driveway Repair in Newfields, NH

Already have a subscription but never signed in before?Get started

Get unlimited access with a subscription

Choose your plan. Cancel anytime.

Digital

Annual

$99 for the first year

Daily digital access on any desktop, tablet, or mobile device

Monthly

Buy 1 month for $19.99, get 1 month free

Daily digital access on any desktop, tablet, or mobile device

Digital + Print

Sunday

$1 for the first month

Print delivery + daily digital access & USA TODAY Crossword

Sunday - Friday

$1 for the first month

Print delivery + daily digital access & USA TODAY Crossword

Did you know: Every plan comes with a digital subscription to share.

What's included

Digital plans

Digital + Print

Daily digital access

Android and IOS apps

Subscriber-exclusive content

Digital subscription to share

The eNewspaper — a digital replica of the print newspaper.

Print newspaper delivery

USA TODAY Digital Crossword

Group subscriptions

We have customizable plans for corporations, schools, libraries, government agencies and hotels.

Corporate programsEducation programs

No commitment required. Cancel anytime.

Offer available to new customers only. Read the full subscription terms.

Need help?

Call 888-736-4061 and give offer code W-GX to subscribe.

Questions? Call 888-736-4061

HelpTerms of ServicePrivacy PolicyCalifornia Notice at CollectionResponsible DisclosureYour Privacy Choices

© 2025 www.seacoastonline.com

NEWFIELDS — Neighbors of Vernon Family Farm filed a lawsuit this month against the owners, alleging their agritourism activities, including serving food and alcohol and hosting live music performances, violate town zoning laws and create a "nuisance."

The lawsuit filed Oct 4 in Rockingham Superior Court against Jeremiah and Nicole Vernon, also names the town of Newfields as a defendant.

The five neighbors are seeking an injunction against the farm at 301 Piscassic Road to stop the owners from using the property as a "restaurant" and event space. They also want a judge to order town officials to issue a cease-and-desist order to the owners, and are seeking damages, including legal fees, “resulting from the (farm’s) unlawful activities.”

“It’s unbelievable,” said Jeremiah Vernon Monday in response to the lawsuit. “As much as I knew our neighbors were threatening to sue us, I didn't think you could be fully licensed in your town… in your state, and still get sued for what you’re doing. ... What’s the point of getting inspected by a health inspector, having a food licensing program if your neighbors can just say you’re running an illegal restaurant?”

A hearing on the lawsuit is set for 11 a.m. on Wednesday, Nov. 6, at the Rockingham Superior Court in Brentwood.

Neighbors sue Vernon Family Farm over noise, zoning violations

The five neighbors who filed the suit are Ruth Paterson, Gerald Cox, Mark and Lynn Girard, and Scott Wachsmuth. They have been complaining for years that the activities at the farm are violating the town's noise ordinance and not complying with the town's zoning.

“The use of the Vernon Property as a restaurant and event venue was never lawfully permitted, was illegal from the beginning, and remains so to this day,” the lawsuit states.

The suit alleges that visitors of Vernon Family Farm have trespassed on their properties, the noise from the events is so loud they have to wear earplugs to sleep, and that their children "have become afraid to play outside because of the loud noise, high traffic volumes, police presence, and crowds."

“The adverse impacts in daily living suffered by the (neighbors) also tend to adversely affect the values of their properties,” the lawsuit states.

The owners of the Vernon Family Farm have disputed accusations they are violating town bylaws. According to state law, farms are permitted to engage in agritourism, including attracting visitors for events, meals or overnight stays.

However, the lawsuit alleges that the Vernons' 2022 site plan with the town that allowed for agritourism events had 17 conditions that needed to be fulfilled. Since the majority of the conditions have not been fulfilled, the suit alleges the Vernons have "no lawful right or authority to engage in, conduct, or host agritourism events on the property."

The lawsuit alleges the town refuses to take action, causing them to "suffer weekly from the illegal operations of, and the nuisance created by, the unlawful activities of the (Vernon Family Farm)."

Vernon Family Farm: 'We're not doing anything illegal'

Jeremiah Vernon said they have been working closely with the town – and still are – including attending various zoning, planning and Select Board meetings over the past three years to satisfy their neighbors' concerns.

“We’re not doing anything illegal,” he said.

Vernon said they do not have a restaurant on site and that they use approved caterers with liquor licenses during larger events.

He said the reason they hold agritourism events like Vernon Kitchen and have outdoor concerts is to help support the farm operations.

"This is why you see corn mazes, hay rides, sunflower mazes, petting zoos, farm dinners, farm stores, farm tours, and more offered at many of the farms in our community," he told the town's Planning Board in 2022. "Although many of us farmers would prefer to 'simply' grow and sell food, it is often financially unsustainable to do so."

In the last two years, Vernon said he estimates he spent more than $100,000 in legal fees addressing concerns from the Select Board and neighbors.

He started a GoFundMe page in August to help pay legal bills in case his neighbors filed suit, and so far, it has raised more than $80,000.

"I can’t believe our neighbors can accept putting the burden or all of this on the community because they know the impact of our farm," he said. "It’s not just Jeremiah and Nicole. It impacts the thousands of people who use our farm as where they get their food, and where they find their community – a safe and welcoming space. They’re attacking all of that.”

Neighbors say lawsuit was years in the making

Attempts to reach the neighbors who filed the suit were unsuccessful.

The neighbors spoke out in an op-ed published by Seacoastonline on Oct. 28, stating that “after years of silence and in the face of the Vernons' ongoing social media, we have been cast as the villain.”

They called filing the lawsuit their last resort.

“Over the years, we have tried to work in good faith with the Vernons toward reasonable solutions – only to be deceived, misled, and exploited,” the op-ed states. “We have never challenged the Vernons' ‘right to farm,’ but we have asked – as expected of any citizen or business owner – that they follow established laws and common etiquette.”

The op-ed gave details of their concerns, including the Vernons’ alleged misuse of agrotourism, violation of the laws, and “disregard” for a conservation easement,” on the property, noting they ”…are currently using this land as a parking lot for approximately 150 vehicles for their commercial events in violation of the easement and detriment of the land.”

“Ultimately, our desire is to see the Vernons respectably farm their land in the way in which it was intended (adhering to the conservation easement) and to conduct their events (as an accessory) on land that is designated for commercial – overall, abiding by laws,” they added.

EXETER — Town officials said they are “open to continue discussion” with the Rugg family after the family withdrew their offer to sell 148 acres of woodlands to the towns of Exeter and Newfields over a boundary dispute.

Exeter Select Board Chair Niko Papakonstantis said Monday the town “remains in favor of the proposed project," but noted the Rugg family officially withdrew their offer Friday.

“The town of Exeter had no role in this decision to not move ahead with the project,” he said.

The Trust for Public Land and the Southeast Land Trust of NH have been working with Exeter and Newfields for 18 months to purchase the property, which includes 12 miles of the Fort Rock Trail system, from the Rugg family for nearly $5.2 million.

Newfields voters had approved spending $3.7 million at the March Town Meeting to purchase the Newfields portion of the land, which accounts for 101 of the total 148 acres. Exeter voters overwhelmingly expressed interest this year in buying the remaining 47 acres in their town at next year's Town Meeting.

Momentum for the project, however, came to a halt last week when the Trust for Public Land announced the Rugg family was no longer in a position to sell the property “due to a boundary and ownership issue with the town of Exeter that could not be resolved to each party’s mutual satisfaction.”

What is the land dispute between the town and Rugg family?

According to Papakonstantis, the town “has deeds from various sources” on approximately 37 of the 47 acres in Exeter that the Rugg family had claimed they owned. He said it would be “irresponsible” for the town to forgo its rights to the land and purchase a property that, according to town records, it already owns.

The Rugg family disputes the town’s claims that it owns the land and hired its own land surveyor to make their case.Papakonstantis said the town “has no authority” to determine ownership rights as it is something that would need to go through Superior Court.

Papakonstantis said the town attempted to come to a resolution with the Rugg family. In January, he said Exeter offered to relinquish its claims of ownership to approximately 30 of the 37 acres, provided that the Rugg family do the same with the remaining 6.8 acres, for which Exeter has a warranty deed.

Town Planner Dave Sharples said a warranty deed protects the land from any third-party ownership claims. He said the parcel was given to the town by a developer as conservation land.

“As stewards of taxpayers' dollars and since the town believed it had legitimate claims to the property, it could not simply give up its claims,” Sharples said. “Instead, in January… we made the Ruggs what we believe a fair offer to resolve this dispute.”

However, Papakonstantis said the town did not receive any formal acceptance or rejection of the offer until Friday, a week after the Trust for Public Land made the announcement.

Derek Rugg, who owns 15 (including the 6.8 acres) of the 47 acres in Exeter, was not available for comment.

Save Fort Rock's proponents express ‘disappointment,’ 'frustration' and ‘anger’

Proponents of the project filled up the room at Monday’s meeting, holding posters that read “Save Fort Rock” and “Save Our Trails.”

Exeter resident Dan Longcope expressed his “disappointment,” “frustration” and “anger” that the project is no longer moving forward.

“I was riding last week, and as I was going through these trails, I’m thinking, ‘Oh, this is going to be somebody’s living room, this is going to be somebody’s pool…’” he said, referring to the fact that the land could be sold to a developer if it is not conserved.

Mike Mackey, of Newfields, said he “felt betrayed by Exeter.”

He said Newfields did a lot of the “heavy work,” having to face two of the three Select Board members who were against the project to gain voter approval at Town Meeting for its share of the cost.

Gabe Klaff, of Exeter, said the town should “exhaust all options” and look at every possibility to work with the Ruggs and move the project forward.

“My concern with this process is that we as a town and the community, have not done enough to break down the red tape for these people,” he said. “But you’re not dealing with a massive corporation here who’s trying to hoard their pennies and negotiate for every little cent, you’re dealing with a family who’s outwardly given us such a treasure in this land and experiences that it offers.”

Select Board willing to return to the negotiation table

Selectman Dan Chartrand said there was nothing but support from the board for the project. However, he said, the Ruggs have not been responsive to the town on resolving the dispute, speculating that the boundary was not the real issue that made the Ruggs not want to move forward.

“My spidey sense tells me the boundary dispute is a bit of a red herring and an excuse for not moving forward, and I don’t know why. I don’t have an explanation,” he said. “The lack of engagement with us, that speaks volumes of what’s going on behind the scenes.”

Papakonstantis added the town also offered the Rugg family mediation to resolve this issue, which the family declined.

“When and if the family wants to continue the discussion, we are ready,” he said. “We know that our constituents are excited about this project, and we are excited about this project.”