Latest Horse Farm Proposal

Renews Neighborhood Opposition

By Andrew Gorosko

In a long-running controversy, the opponents of converting a private Sandy Hook horse farm into a commercial stable have explained their objections to the plan to the Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z), in urging the land use agency to reject the proposal.

Residents of Stone Gate Drive told P&Z members at a public hearing that Annette Sullivan’s proposal to convert her private horse farm at 5 Morgan Drive into a commercial stable for the boarding, riding, and training of horses, and the training of riders, would diminish the neighbors’ quality of life and damage their property values. Ms Sullivan is seeking a special exception to the zoning regulations to open the equine business.

Various versions of Ms Sullivan’s proposal for the commercial use of the 30-acre property, known as Zoar Ridge Stables, have long been pending before the town, with the current proposal being the fifth time the matter has been before either the P&Z or the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) during the past two years.

Previous proposals for the commercial use of the horse farm, which had included construction of an indoor horse arena, repeatedly met with staunch opposition from Stone Gate Drive residents, whose relatively new homes lie to the west of the farm.

Ms Sullivan withdrew her first two proposals before the P&Z had acted on them. In June 1999, the P&Z turned down a third proposal. Ms Sullivan challenged that P&Z rejection in Danbury Superior Court, but a judge upheld the P&Z’s action.

Ms Sullivan later secured approval from the zoning enforcement officer to build an approximately 10,000-square-foot indoor horse arena on her property for “personal use,” but Stone Gate Drive neighbors appealed the construction approval to the ZBA, which overturned that approval last May.

The proposal now pending before the P&Z omits the indoor horse arena and reduces the number of horses which would be kept at the stable from 28 to 15.

Attorney John Fallon of Fairfield, who represents Robert and Donna Sapienza of 6 Stone Gate Drive and also Christopher and Meg Maurer of 12 Stone Gate Drive, told P&Z members December 14 that the Sullivan proposal is not about the keeping of horses, recreational activity, farming, and the preservation of local rural character, but is actually about starting a business in a residential area. Such a commercial stable would be disruptive to the residential area, Mr Fallon stressed. Such a commercial use does not belong in a residential area because it is incompatible with the neighborhood, he said.

 The circumstances under which Ms Sullivan is seeking P&Z permission to operate a commercial stable have not essentially changed in the current application, Mr Fallon said.

Mr Fallon charged that Ms Sullivan’s P&Z application lacks fundamental information concerning the nature of the business, its hours of operation, its customers, its trainers, and events which would be held at the site. The lawyer said that if the P&Z grants Ms Sullivan a permit, it would “open a Pandora’s Box” to various horse-related uses of the property.

Mr Fallon said Ms Sullivan illegally used the property in 1997 and 1998 as a commercial stable, until the P&Z issued a cease-and-desist order against her to stop doing so. Ms Sullivan then added horse-related structures to the property, Mr Fallon said. Ms Sullivan obtained construction permits for those structures after learning that such permits are required by the town.

Mr Fallon questioned the validity of traffic flow information that Ms Sullivan has included in her application, charging that it does not accurately describe the increase in area traffic flow that would be generated by a commercial stable.

The proposed commercial stable would have adverse environmental effects on the area, Mr Fallon said.

Mr Fallon presented P&Z members with two petitions, the first of which seeks to have his clients certified as “intervenors” by the P&Z based on environmental concerns about potential well water contamination due to the proximity of their properties to horse manure on the farm. The second petition seeks to raise the P&Z’s standard for approving the application from a 3-to-2 simple majority vote up to a 4-to-1 super majority vote.

Many people who are in favor of Ms Sullivan’s application spoke on behalf of it November 16 at the first installment of the public hearing.

Appraiser

Chris Kerin, a real estate appraiser who represents the Sapienzas, provided P&Z members with a report on the effect that the presence of a commercial stable would have on nearby properties, such as those on Stone Gate Drive.

The market value of residential Stone Gate Drive properties ranges from $390,000 to $440,000, Mr Kerin said. The subdivision was constructed in 1995-1996.

Homes lying to the north and east of the horse farm are well buffered from it and would suffer no adverse effect of property values, Mr Kerin said.

However, an existing horse riding ring on the farm is adjacent to Stone Gate Drive properties, he added. A commercial use of the farm would be more intensive than a private use and would damage the values of certain properties, due to special events, noise, and traffic, Mr Kerin said. He estimated that the Sapienza property at 6 Stone Gate Drive would suffer a 10 percent, or $40,000, loss in value.        

A commercial stable would not be in harmony with the residential neighborhood, he said, adding that its presence would act to devalue other properties on Stone Gate Drive and nearby Jeremiah Road.

Mr Kerin noted Ms Sullivan’s application does not propose any physical buffering between the farm and Stone Gate Drive properties.

In effect, Ms Sullivan and her husband, Brian, have already built a horse farm on their land, Mr Kerin said. “They have built the horse farm and now they’re asking your permission to use it,” he told P&Z members.

 If the Sullivans had sought town approvals before constructing the horse farm, the farm’s layout would not look as it does, but would include buffering to shield adjacent properties from the farm, Mr Kerin said.

Neighboring property owners have complained about the presence of commercial lighting to illuminate a horse ring on the farm. Mr Kerin later said the commercial lighting, the hours of operation, and the holding of special events at the horse farm would have a negative effect on nearby property values. Providing physical buffering between the horse farm and nearby properties would improve the proposal, he said. 

Excessive Lighting

Robert Sapienza told P&Z members that the Sullivans have built many structures on their farm since he bought his home at 6 Stone Gate Drive in 1995. The horse complex is directly behind his backyard, he said. He termed the presence of the commercial lighting for the horse ring “excessive and overbearing.”

Mr Sapienza said a commercial stable would greatly increase traffic in the area.

Also, the manure generated by horses could pose groundwater pollution problems and potential threats to domestic well water quality, he said. Mr Sapienza said his water well is located in his back yard. Intensifying the use of the farm would pose health risks, he said.

Until he had complained, the farm had kept a manure pile near his property line, Mr Sapienza said.          

Donna Sapienza, Mr Sapienza’s wife, said that after they moved into their home, activity at the horse farm increased. Intensifying the use of the horse farm would hurt the character of the neighborhood and damage property values, she said.

Margie Bauer of 58 Jeremiah Road expressed concerns about possible groundwater pollution stemming from the presence of manure.

Meg Maurer of 12 Stone Gate Drive said, “This [site] has the potential to be more like a three-ring circus than a peaceful horse farm.” Ms Maurer said she does not object to living next to a private horse farm, but does object to living next to a commercial stable.

The 80 hours a week that a commercial stable would be open would be “a tremendous infringement” on abutting property owners, she said. The Sullivan application does not include landscaping plans or a proposal for planted buffers to shield adjacent property owners, she said.

“Please consider the abutters and how they are affected, and deny this application,” Ms Maurer told P&Z members.

Chris Maurer, her husband, voiced concern that a commercial operation next door to his home could damage its value.

Eileen Brooks of 7 Stone Gate Drive said a commercial stable would devalue nearby properties. Ms Brooks asked whether existing human waste disposal facilities on the farm would be adequate for a commercial use of the property.

Kevin Brooks, Ms Brooks’ husband, who opposes the Sullivan application, said a commercial stable could generate significantly more traffic in the area.

Brendan Conway of 10 Stone Gate Drive said trustworthiness is an aspect of the Sullivan application. Mr Conway asked whether the eventual usage of the property would exceed the activities which have been have described in the application.

Cary Jerris of 9 Stone Gate Drive registered his opposition to the Sullivan proposal.

 

Rebuttal

However, not everyone at the December 14 session spoke against the application.

Resident Rosemary Barrett of 3 Morgan Drive said that she likes living near Zoar Ridge Stables. Traffic in the area in 1998, when the farm was run as a commercial stable, was not disruptive, she said. If Ms Sullivan were to sell her property and a residential subdivision were to be built at the site, the new subdivision would generate much traffic, Ms Barrett said.

 Resident Richard Desrochers of 44 Jeremiah Road spoke in favor of the commercial stable application. Mr Desrochers said he did not notice an increase in local traffic flow when the farm was in operation as a commercial stable in the past.

Eva Ammentorp, an environmental specialist who is Ms Sullivan’s sister, said the quantity of animal waste that would be generated by animals kept on the farm would not pose health hazards to nearby domestic water wells, according to P&Z records.

Real estate appraiser Frank O’Neill, representing Ms Sullivan, said the horse farm has no effect on nearby property values, according to P&Z records.

Attorney Robert Hall, representing Ms Sullivan, said that in view of neighbors’ concerns, the farm is willing to relocate the lighting on its property away from the Stone Gate Drive area to the area where the now-defunct indoor horse arena would have been built.

Mr Fallon, however, pointed out that such a redesign of the plan would require a formal reapplication to the P&Z.

Mr Hall said the P&Z has approved similar horse farms in other residential areas in the past. Mr Hall has said the current version of the proposal amounts to a basic horse farm.

Explaining her current proposal, Ms Sullivan said it is a compromise plan through which she seeks to operate a horse farm and make peace with her neighbors, according to P&Z records.

P&Z members are expected to act on the Sullivan proposal at an upcoming session.