Page 3A Charles W. Kalil et al v. Town Of Dummer, Question #6 Of 6.

6. Whether the superior court erred in holding that the provisions in the DZO that (t)here is a Conservation Overlay zone within which only the following activities are permitted1. forestry, 2. agriculture (and) 3. low intensity, outdoor recreation, bars aircraft taking offs and landings on private land in light of 674:16, V which provides unless specifically proscribed by local land use regulation, aircraft take offs and landings on private land by the owner of such land or by the who person resides on such land shall be considered a valid and permitted accessory use. and in light of Spengler v. Porter, 144 NH 163, 737 A.2d 1121 (1999)
and Tonnesen v. Town of Gilmanton, 156 NH 813, 943 A2d 782 (2008)

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30