Zoning Board of Adjustment — June 16, 2026
Exeter ZBA denies large multifamily project in CT zone and continues Main Street condo proposal after resident objections on density and rentals.
Two variance cases drew substantial public comment on density and infrastructure, but the board remained unified in its procedural and criteria-based decisions.
Questions about this meeting? Just ask.
Ask MeetingWatch answers from this meeting’s report, transcript, and records — with linked sources.
On June 16, Exeter's Zoning Board of Adjustment addressed two contested variance requests that drew repeated resident objections on density, rentals, traffic, and infrastructure capacity.
For the Chinberg Developers proposal at 65-67 1/2 Main Street, the board continued the application after applicants could not provide lot coverage calculations. Neighbors had objected to replacing seven existing rental units with five new condominiums in an R-2 district, citing increased footprint and neighborhood character changes. The matter returns next month once data is supplied.
The board denied the Saxton Partners request for a 334-unit multifamily development off Holland Way in the Corporate Technology zone. It determined the project failed three of the five variance criteria, including public interest and unnecessary hardship, after testimony on single-access safety risks and 1,574 daily vehicle trips. The denial keeps the 36-acre site from shifting to residential use.
Public impact
Prevents ~334 new residential units and associated traffic/water demand
Variance denied for failure to satisfy criteria 1, 2, and 5
Potential replacement of 7 rental units with 5 new condominium units pending lot coverage data
Application continued to next month
Applicant to supply lot coverage analysis and any additional variances
Topics discussed
Board reviewed and approved minutes from April 21 and May 19, 2026 meetings with minor amendments for clarification.
Minutes of April 21 approved 5-0 as amended; minutes of May 19 approved 4-0 as amended.
Board considered request for rehearing on variance denial for property at 35-37 River Street, focusing on late-submitted appraisal and abutter documents.
Motion to grant rehearing approved; case will be reheard in full at the next available meeting without prejudice.
Full rehearing scheduled for next available ZBA meeting.
CKT Associates requested a one-year extension of a 2021 variance for relocating building D in the Ray Farm active adult community.
Extension approved to October 10, 2027.
Chinberg Developers sought variances to allow five single-family dwellings on a lot in the R-2 district at 65-67 1/2 Main Street; applicant seeks to replace 3 existing buildings (7 rental units) with 5 standalone condominium units.
Public hearing opened; board expressed discomfort approving without lot coverage/open space data; applicant requested continuance to supply formal calculations.
Application continued to next month's meeting for lot coverage analysis and any required additional variances.
Applicant seeks use variance to allow ~334-unit multifamily residential project (300 apartments + 34 townhouses) on 36+ acre site off Holland Way in Corporate Technology (CT) zone where residential use is not permitted.
Public hearing opened after non-public session; hearing closed after testimony; consensus formed that application fails criteria 1, 2, and 5; motion to deny passed.
Applicant rebuttal and board deliberation/vote on variance criteria at future continued hearing (none needed after denial).
Board elected officers for the coming term by slate: Robert Prior (chair), Laura Davies (vice chair), Esther Olson-Murphy (clerk).
Slate approved unanimously.
Controversy & dissent
Potentially controversial issues
Chinberg Developers variance for five units at 65-67 1/2 Main Street
Saxton Partners LLC use variance for 334-unit multifamily project in CT zone
Community vs. board tension
Public comment
Decisions logged
Action items
Member positions
Positions marked ~ are inferred from context and may not reflect the member's explicitly stated position. UNCLEAR means the vote was split but the record did not name how this member voted — it is not a “yes.”
Creating this report cost real money.
MeetingWatch attended, transcribed, and analyzed this meeting on its own dime. If this work is valuable to you, chip in to keep covering Exeter.
Follow Exeter
One email when a new report is published from the Zoning Board of Adjustment — or one weekly digest.
grok-4.3, grok-4.20-0309-reasoning · analyzed 2026-06-21.
Members feature
Ask questions. Get answers with receipts.
Ask about anything covered on this page and get a plain-English answer that links to the report, the official records, and the exact moment in the meeting video.
Create a free accountFree with a MeetingWatch account — no card, no spam.
Already a member? Sign in
Ask questions about any meeting
Open a community, board, issue, or meeting and I can answer from its records — with links to the report, official documents, and the exact moment in the video.
Then reopen this button to start asking.
AI-generated from meeting records — verify against the linked sources. Conversations are stored (privacy).