Gravel Driveway Repair in Newfields, NH

EXETER — A major development is coming to the Exeter-Newfields town line pending a developer’s purchase of 168 acres of woodlands from the Rugg family – which also includes 12 miles of the Fort Rock Trail system.

Drew Goddard, owner of Stratham-based development company Copley Properties, LLC, recently went before the Exeter Planning Board for a design review for the project that will be built in Newfields. They are looking to subdivide the 168-acre parcel into 77 lots for single-family homes, with each lot measuring half an acre and featuring approximately 50 feet of frontage.

The project comes after the Rugg family backed out of a deal to sell 148 acres to Exeter and Newfields to keep the land as conservation. The plan at that time was for the towns, in conjunction with Trust for Public Land and Southeast Land Trust, to purchase the land from the Rugg Family for $5.2 million – Exeter’s 47 acres was valued at just over $1.64 million, while Newfields’ 101 acres was just over $3.5 million.

Derek Rugg said after that deal fell through due to a boundary dispute with the town of Exeter, the family decided to sell the property and 20 additional acres to Copley Properties last month. While the sale price was not disclosed, he said the land sold for “substantially more” than what was offered from the two towns.

“When we did the conservation (deal), we agreed never to shop … we didn't do any shopping or looking at the price of what the land would be going for in an open market,” he said. “It was a shock to see how much more it was.”

Developer shares plans for 77 homes

Representing the developer, JJ MacBride of Emanuel Engineering told the Planning Board the development is currently only planned on the Newfields portion of the property. Development could occur on the Exeter potion if there is a resolution to the boundary dispute with Exeter, according to their plans.

Exeter officials have claimed they have “deeds from various sources” on approximately 37 of the 47 acres in Exeter that the Rugg family had claimed they owned.

MacBride said the project will be a conservation subdivision, allowing them an additional 10% increase in the number of housing units allowed in exchange for setting aside a large portion of land as open space.

Although the space is being considered for 77 new homes, Goddard emphasized his desire to maintain the existing trails. He noted that this will be a key factor in the planning process, and the current plans are “just conceptual,” and are likely to change for various reasons.

“The loss of connectivity (of the trails) is not going to happen,” he said. “ … I’ve had some discussions with some people in the biking community that have a lot of passion for those trails and been great stewards to maintaining those trails… As we work through this, I do see change, but I do hope we can leave it with something that people that do utilize it … (will) still be able to have the opportunity.”

In addition, Goddard said he plans to “enhance” these trails by including parking access for non-neighboring residents.

Why developer presented plans to Exeter Planning Board

While all the development is on the Newfields side, Goddard said he wanted to let the board know since part of their property is also in Exeter.

“The ownership of some of those parcels (in Exeter) are actively being pursued and resolved,” he added. “Based on the information that we have, the landowners are confident of their rights to those parcels, but obviously have to go through the proper channel.”

Exeter Select Board Chair Niko Papakonstantis previously said the town attempted to come to a resolution with the Rugg family over the boundary dispute as part of plans for Exeter and Newfields to buy the property.

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.

Papakonstantis said the town did not receive any formal acceptance or rejection of the offer until the Rugg family decided to pull out of the deal in June.

Newfields, Exeter residents not happy with development

Prior to meeting with Exeter, Copley Properties met with the Newfields Planning Board Aug. 8 for a similar review. The plan received pushback from Newfields residents, who brought up concerns about adding density and traffic congestion into town. Others were upset that the entirety of the land would no longer be conserved.

Newfields Select Board Chair Michael Sununu, however, told those in attendance that Goddard had the right to develop the property as long as he followed the rules for a subdivision.

Exeter resident Vanessa Lazar, who has been an advocate for saving the land for conservation, said Wednesday she was “incredibly disappointed” about plans to put 77 homes on the property. She said the development will “saturate this beautiful forest.”

Lazar expressed concerns about potential contamination between the septic systems and the groundwater of nearby properties, given the development’s reliance on private wells. She also called for the developer to conduct more thorough environmental impact studies.

“Development in Exeter is not off the table,” she added. “I don’t like this one bit.”

COLUMNS

Many people in the N.H. Seacoast are familiar with Vernon Family Farm in Newfields, N.H. — but unfortunately, it may be because of the dispute that the Vernons have fostered with the town and their neighbors.

As a target of their claims, we—the neighbors who abut Vernon Family Farm — are no longer able to stay silent amid disparaging remarks and a false narrative.

Over the years, we have tried to work in good faith with the Vernons toward reasonable solutions— only to be deceived, misled, and exploited. 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 need to clear the air and gain understanding

Unfortunately, after years of silence and in the face of the Vernons' ongoing social media, we have been cast as the villain. However, it is our hope that people can apply common sense, look beyond the hype, and put themselves in our shoes to understand our predicament — like anyone, we simply wish to protect our families and our rights.

As longtime N.H. Seacoast residents, we love our community, and we are thankful for those who have defended our character and truly know the effort we put forth to resolve this situation. That said, rather than disclose what can only be described as unscrupulous activities by the Vernons (which they must wrestle with), or the lengths we’ve taken to accommodate the Vernons, we want to shed light on the core issues.

For starters, to be clear, we’ve only recently retained legal counsel as a last resort. The legal woes that the Vernons belabor and exploit on social media are due to their actions and failure to abide by state laws and town regulations.

As for the central issues that we believe every resident and business should be concerned with, here are a few examples:

Vernon Family Farm and misuse of agritourism

NH RSA 21:34-a defines agritourism as “marketing, which means attracting visitors to a farm to attend events and activities that are accessory uses to the primary farm operation.” That said, farms must still comply with state statutes, municipal planning, zoning ordinances, and applicable conservation easements.

Over the years, Vernon Family Farm has hosted increasingly more concert events, now occurring every weekend from May through October. Originally small gatherings with acoustic instruments, concerts are now amplified over a PA system at decibel levels beyond legal limits and with speakers directed at neighboring homes. These events are without clear ties to the farm operations and consist of tiered ticket pricing (versus general admission) and hard alcohol sales. In short, concerts have become a primary operation versus an accessory to the farm and without regard to people or property.

Additionally, agritourism as defined in the RSA “may be regulated to prevent traffic and parking from adversely impacting adjacent property, streets and sidewalks, or public safety.” The concerts have grown to compromise privacy, the peaceful enjoyment of neighboring homes, and safety in the area, and they’ve violated laws — to the point where neighbors have had to install security cameras to ensure their own safety with regard to trespassing and other violations.

Disregard for conservation easement

Of the Vernon Family Farm's 33 acres, 31 acres are bound by a conservation easement that restricts the land to specific agricultural and forestry activities for “the prevention of any uses of the property that will significantly impair or interfere with the conservation values of the property.”

The Vernons have not been good stewards of the conservation land, and 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.

Violation of the laws

Like any government entity, Newfields and the state of N.H. have strict laws regarding noise, licensing, construction, and business operations—all intended to protect people and property, including business owners.

Vernon Family Farm has chosen to break laws, including noise ordinances. Additionally, Vernon Family Farm has built a bar and commercial kitchen without proper permitting while concealing its intended use. They have been subject to two cease and desist orders and continue to hold events without completing site plan requirements. Every citizen and business should be held to the laws, without exceptions.

N.H. state law asserts that agritourism cannot have negative impacts on adjacent properties —Vernon Family Farm has negatively impacted abutting properties and property values.

Honoring the essence of farming

These issues are just the tip of the iceberg with regard to what neighboring property owners have dealt with. It’s important to note that several of us grew up on family farms and believe farms are a vital and vibrant part of our state and its heritage. However, the Vernons have failed to abide by the rules, expectations, and decency that give them the right to farm.

One must ask — considering the many working farms in Newfields and surrounding communities who manage successfully without disputes, in contrast to the Vernons' ongoing disputes, six crowdfunding campaigns, seemingly full-time adversarial social media effort, and music concerts as their primary business— is farming the actual goal here?

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.

We all have dreams and work hard for what we have, but to what extent do we let it negatively impact those around us? We appreciate your consideration and hope that we’ve added clarity and gained your understanding of this unfortunate situation.

The Girard, Patterson and Wachmuth families abut Vernon Family Farm in Newfields.

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.