Oenoke Ridge Road Neighbor Files New Appeal Claiming Violations of Town Code, Zoning Regulations

Three months after town officials unanimously rejected one appeal from an Oenoke Ridge Road couple that centered on the way their neighbor used an accessory structure, they’re seeking to force that same neighbor to apply for a special permit for what they deem to be “farming activities.”

Peter and Kathy Streinger of 785 Oenoke Ridge Road said in a new appeal that their neighbor to the west keeps animals (chickens, alpacas and recently, a rooster) in a way that rises to the definition of “farming” under local and state laws and “materially impacts the property values” of surrounding homes.

The Streingers said they’re appealing “erroneous interpretations and decisions” by the town and want their neighbor to put in for a special permit in order to continue activities on the property. The Streingers’ property is 4.32 acres, tax records show, their neighbors’ is 4 acres.

Specifically, the Streingers take issue in their appeal—it’s available here, in the dropdown menu—with the town’s finding that their neighbor is keeping animals in a way that is consistent with town regulations.

Under the New Canaan Zoning Regulations (see page 46 here), residents may keep animals in accordance with the provisions outlined in Chapter 6 of the Town Code—a section that limits potential problems such as noisy or roaming animals, and seeks to preserve public health.

The zoning regs define farming as: “The use of any tract of land or building, either as a principal use or an accessory use as outlined in Connecticut General Statutes 1-1(q), except that gardens incidental to the dwelling on the premises shall not constitute a farm.”

The Streingers in their appeal highlight sections of the state definition of farming—such as “the raising, shearing, feeding, caring for, training and management of livestock, including horses, bees, poultry, fur-bearing animals”; “the operation, management, conservation, improvement or maintenance of a farm and its buildings, tools and equipment” and “the production or harvesting of maple syrup”—and go on to argue that their neighbor is in violation in each case.

The Streingers said in the appeal that “there are currently dozens of chickens roaming the property, 5 alpacas and numerous other animals that come and go from the property (including a rooster this summer). In addition, there are multiple tractors and other farming equipment used daily in support of the farming activity. It is not only us that consider this to be a farm, but the property owners do as well as per their ‘Abby Normal Farm’ Facebook page.”

“We have complained numerous times about the farm equipment left out right along our property line, and just recently [former Town Planner] Mr. [Steve] Kleppin instructed the property owners to store the tractors indoors as required by the Code. However, while the tractors are now stored, there is other farming equipment still sitting along our property line, which we can only assume is being left there intentionally.”

The Zoning Board of Appeals is scheduled to meet Monday night.

Neither the appellant nor the neighbor that is the subject of the appeal could be reached for comment.

Parts of the Streingers’ argument appears to be open to interpretation.

For example, as cited above, they point to the name of a Facebook page as evidence that their neighbor is operating a farm—while the name itself is drawn from a scene in Mel Brooks’ film “Young Frankenstein” and refers to a property that for decades had been part of a large working farm.

They also point to the “harvesting of maple syrup” in the state’s definition of “farming,” and their appeal includes photos of bottled syrup, though it isn’t clear whether they’re designed as simple homemade gifts or something more serious.

Also, citing the Town Code, the Streingers note that it requires “all fowl or poultry … must be penned and not allowed to run at large.”

“The numerous chickens and alpacas on the property are currently allowed to run freely, including close to our property line and water well,” they said.

However, a look at the neighbor’s lot shows that the entire property is fenced in, opening a question as to whether that constitutes “penning” under the Town Code.

Some of the photos included in the appeal feature problems that did not appear to exist on the property during a review from an abutting neighbor’s vantage point on Wednesday morning—for example, manure piles.

Citing a section of the Zoning Regulations that specifies that some non-residential uses may be allowed in residential districts so long as they “preserve neighborhood character and property values,” the Streingers bring in the town assessor to make a determination about what’s happening to their own property value (their home, purchased for $7,275,000 in 2006, last was appraised at about $5.4 million, tax records show).

The assessor responded to the Streingers’ inquiry by saying that manure, farm equipment and animals that roam near the property line could result in at least a 15 percent decrease in value, according to a communication that they reproduce.

Asked about his comments, the assessor told NewCanaanite.com: “They showed me some pictures and wanted to know if the condition based on pictures would impact value, so I gave my opinion based on those pictures and I consider that as a blight and it would impact the value possibly but with the understanding that I did not do any analysis and just simply my opinion and they should consult with a bias appraiser to determine the true value impact.”

It isn’t clear whether the Streingers sought that consultation or what its findings were.

Even so, citing the assessor, the Streingers said: “Thus, how is it possible for the town to allow an activity that is not suitable or consistent with the environmental characteristics or neighborhood character, and which clearly has a material negative effect on property values, as confirmed by the Town of New Canaan’s own assessor? We have provided evidence of impairment from the Town’s own veteran certified expert on property valuation. The Town simply cannot make zoning decisions that take value away from neighboring homes and ours.”

It isn’t clear whether the ZBA will take up the appeal during its Nov. 7 meeting. An agenda has not yet been posted.