Zoning Should Be Consistent

To the Editor:

Last week this column carried a letter from the Maurers, who are opposing a Special Exception permit to board horses at 5 Morgan Drive. It is not surprising to me that the Maurers have changed their position  on the importance of the Sullivans’ outdoor riding lights because they know that the Sullivans have removed them! The Sullivans offered to move the lights to an arena nearly 250 feet from the nearest property line (mine). Even the Maurers’ real estate appraiser admitted that the only impact the application had on the neighbors on Stone Gate was the proximity of the lights. At the new proposed site, the Maurers’ property line would be over 500 feet away. How could lights so far away be seen as objectionable? So now they have to find something else to complain about.

I think it is time to remind everyone that there are zoning regulations set up to preserve horse-boarding stables in Newtown. The property on Morgan Drive conforms to all these regulations. The application also has all the town approvals. It is alarming to me that the Sullivans have had to jump through hoops to get a permit that others have received with no difficulty. There should be consistency when it comes to zoning issues. The real problem seems to be that people do not understand the difference between a boarding stable and a “commercial” riding stable.

As my neighbors are well aware, the Special Exception does not rezone 5 Morgan Drive as a “commercial” parcel. A Home Depot or a Jiffy Lube would never move into our neighborhood. The permit would recognize this parcel for the agricultural use of boarding horses, as defined in the Connecticut Statues. I would also like to remind the neighbors that  the Planning and Zoning Commission, within the past two years, has approved two other boarding stables. These farms were smaller in acreage than the Sullivans’ and requested either the expansion of an indoor riding arena or the expanded use of a riding lesson program. The Sullivans are not asking for either of those. Although the neighbors of these farms also had concerns, since receiving town approvals there have been no complaints. There is no reason to feel threatened by a 15 horse boarding stable in our neighborhood. It is hardly a “commercial equestrian center.”

The Stone Gate residents should remember that the boarding stable was “in their backyard” when they bought their homes in 1996 and 1997. Everyone was able to live peacefully for well over a year. If it was going to be such a problem to live adjacent to a working farm they shouldn’t have bought on this street. It was certainly common knowledge that the farm was boarding horses; it was even mentioned by the developer. Perhaps the opposition stems from the fact that their kids are no longer welcome on the farm because of the behavior of their parents.

I also want to correct the Maurers on the point of the directly affected neighbors and their position towards the farm. Only their friends on Stone Gate Drive spoke in opposition to the application. The neighbors on Alpine Circle, Jeremiah Road, Sweetbrier Lane, and Morgan Drive overwhelmingly support the farm. It is not the Stone Gate neighbors that should be given extra consideration in reviewing this application; it is the residents on Morgan Drive. The residents on Morgan Drive all spoke in favor of the application. They lived there when the farm was active and know what to expect if the application is approved. It is only the residents of Stone Gate Drive, with their hypothetical scenarios, who have become hysterical over the prospects of returning 5 Morgan Drive to a horse-boarding farm. Who would have imagined that all this controversy, over the presence of a few horses and riders, could occur in Newtown?

As for the “assumption” that 5 Morgan Drive would become another subdivision, if you were the Sullivans would you want to stay?

Sincerely,

Rosemary Zanfini

8 Stone Gate Drive, Newtown                                     December 27, 2000