Exeter council adopts farm-and-forest overlay amendments with new limits on outdoor events and setbacks

The Exeter Town Council adopted revisions to a proposed farm-and-forest floating overlay district after a lengthy public hearing, adding new limits on outdoor musical performances, moving commercial slaughterhouse uses to require Town Council approval, and setting a minimum 500‑foot setback for certain event uses.

Town Planner Bill (speaking to the council) said the document before members “is a revised version of the recommendations from the planning board and the town planner” and that it consolidated overlay‑district rules into a single section. The hearing continued a planning‑board review that began June 2.

The ordinance draft targets large parcels and creates a “floating” overlay district that property owners must request through an eligibility and public‑hearing process. Attorney John Pagarini, speaking for the applicant, asked that line 167 be amended so that “live performance” reads “outdoor live performance,” noting the planning board’s concern was sound from outdoor amplification. Pagarini also asked that commercial slaughterhouses be removed from the list of prohibited uses and instead be allowed under Town Council discretion.

Supporters and critics addressed the council during the public comment period. A resident who identified himself as a former Department of Environmental Management official called the draft “a big improvement” over an earlier version but urged the council to add clearer standards to protect neighbors, saying the ordinance as drafted “allows a long list of very generous uses but . . . falls short with the necessary standards to protect adjacent property owners’ rights.”

Resident Jason Davis urged the council to revisit the 75‑acre eligibility threshold and other numeric limits, saying the size and income requirements could favor larger, established farms and “stifle competition.” Rob Curry of the planning board said the board had debated how to limit event frequency, noting that a venue could otherwise host repeated events that would produce recurring traffic and noise near residential properties.

After discussion the council amended the draft and voted to adopt it with the following, council members said: - Events featuring music: changed to require outdoor performances and restricted to non‑amplified acoustic acts during 11 a.m. to 8 p.m.; - Commercial slaughterhouse: removed from the outright prohibitions and relocated so any commercial slaughterhouse would require Town Council approval; and - Minimum setbacks for listed limited uses (event spaces, parking, etc.): added a requirement that such limited uses not take place within 500 feet of any front, rear or side yard property line of the parcel (the motion defined the parcel as possibly comprised of multiple lots in common ownership), with the Town Council authorized to grant variances under the cited state dimensional‑fairness criteria.

Ken (town solicitor) read the substantive amendment language during the council motion and described how the council could grant a variance under state law. The ordinance as amended retains a floating‑district procedure: a property owner must meet the eligibility criteria, receive a planning‑board review and then seek establishment of the overlay via Town Council public hearing.

Council members and planning board representatives repeatedly emphasized that the changes were intended to support small‑scale farm uses while protecting rural character and adjacent properties. Planning Board member Rob Curry said the board had tried to “put some suspenders on this” to avoid a scenario in which a property could host frequent 150‑person events every week. The planner and several councilors discussed alternative limiting approaches — such as setbacks, frequency caps, or objective site standards — and agreed the council could not rely on open‑ended discretion when setting conditions because that could raise legal challenges.

The council approved the motion by voice vote; the motioner on the record spoke from the dais and Ray seconded the motion. Members voiced “Aye” when asked; the motion carried.

Next steps noted by council staff included: drafting the amended ordinance text for publication and filing, clarifying the application and notice requirements for floating‑district petitions (including who must be notified and when), and specifying the procedure and objective criteria Town Council members will use when granting any requested setback variances.

The public hearing and debate lasted more than an hour; planning staff said the change language reflected several rounds of planning‑board review and public input that began at earlier hearings. Councilors indicated individual applicants would still need to return to the planning board and the Town Council for a floating‑district designation and any site‑specific approvals.

The ordinance discussion was the meeting’s most substantial agenda item; councilors scheduled follow‑up work and asked staff to return the final, edited ordinance for formal codification and publication.