Exeter council continues hearing on proposed Farm Overlay/Floating Zone after notice, specificity concerns

The Exeter Town Council continued a public hearing on text amendments to the town zoning code that would create a Farm Overlay District or a floating-zone alternative after staff and the town solicitor said the version advertised did not meet statutory notice requirements and the draft lacked required specificity.

Town Planner Bill Cottrell presented the council with a memorandum (dated May 21, 2025) summarizing the planning board review and the planning staff's concerns. Cottrell said the planning board voted 5-0 to support a revised, annotated draft but that the version originally advertised did not define allowed uses, operational parameters or an application and approval process in sufficient detail. "The text amendment creating a new overlay district ... lacks the necessary specificity regarding the allowed uses and their operational parameters," Cottrell said.

Attorney John Pangarini, representing applicant Earl Adams, told the council his client submitted a cleaned-up version of the proposal and urged the council to proceed. "We believe that the board could adopt it this evening," Pangarini said, adding the planning board had publicly reviewed the concept. The town solicitor advised otherwise: because the advertised notice described a mapped overlay district, mailed notice to abutters (within 200 feet) would have been required; that mailing was not done. The solicitor said the applicant could instead pursue a floating zone, which does not require the same mailed notice, but urged re-advertising and another meeting to avoid procedural challenges.

Adams described the intent behind the proposal as helping "farmers keep large farms intact and to come up with additional revenue sources," including definitions for uses such as farmers markets, agribusiness, farm kitchens and farm events. He described the East Fest/parachute events he hosts on his property and said the planning board had worked extensively to refine definitions and eligibility criteria.

Public commenters and several councilors debated key policy questions the draft raised: whether to require five years of prior agricultural use as an eligibility threshold, how to limit event size and frequency, whether certain uses (for example commercial slaughterhouses, game preserves or exotic-animal operations) should be prohibited, and how application fees should be structured. Members raised concerns about one proposed fee calculation that tied an application fee to two cents per square foot of the farm area; one speaker warned that applied literally that method could produce very large fees.

Councilors received multiple drafts: the original advertised version, a planning-board annotated version and an applicant's "clean" version filed the same day. Given the notice and specificity issues, the council voted to continue the public hearing to allow the applicant and staff to publish a version that reflects the planning board's recommendations and to meet statutory advertising requirements. The council set a continuation date for the next advertised meeting and instructed staff to prepare the advertisement and a clean, strike-and-underline draft for public review.

What happened next: The council did not adopt the ordinance at the meeting. Members said they want a clear public record (a single advertised draft with underlines showing additions) and left open two implementation approaches discussed at length: (1) creating a mapped overlay/floating-zone framework that requires a specific application and planning-board recommendation for each parcel, or (2) a regulatory regime with by-right, limited and prohibited uses where many relatively small farm activities could be approved administratively but unusual or larger proposals would go to the planning board.

Why it matters: The amendment would change how the town regulates farm-based events and agribusiness activity across eligible residential and agricultural zones. Councilors said they supported preserving farms but wanted clarity on limits, notification and administrative process so future applicants and neighbors understand what is permitted.

Council action: Motion to continue the public hearing and re-advertise the proposal; motion carried by voice vote.