On Wednesday, October 7, Newtown’s Zoning Board of Appeals hosted a meeting to continue discussion and host a vote regarding Abbotts Hill Farm & Rescue. On September 2, Naomi Ribeiro and her husband Victor first approached the board and asked to have the violations appealed.

The notice of violation was issued on June 30 this year by Deputy Director of Land Use Steve Maguire. The violations included: 3.01.540 ag-tivities/agrotourism; 3.01.541 farms of at least three acres; 3.01.542 shall register with an accessory ag-tivities/agrotourism zoning permit; 3.01.390 pig farm — the housing and care of pigs, minimum lot size four acres; 3.01.391 manure must be removed from the site periodically, must be located at least 100 feet from any well, stream, or watercourse, must be located at least 100 feet from any property line, and must conform to CT Department of Public Health for dwelling setbacks; and 7.03.220 buildings housing animals must be 100 feet from any property line.

Naomi spoke to the board at length at the September meeting and explained how her farm animals are used in therapeutic groups and classes to help teach empathy, respect, and responsibility. Several members of the public attended the meeting and showed unwavering support for Naomi, her farm, and her counseling services.

After her presentation and several questions from board members, the board ultimately decided to table the vote to the next meeting so the members could review the materials submitted and zoning regulations to make an informed decision. That decision was made at the October 7 meeting.

The public hearing was closed at the September 2 meeting, so only the board could deliberate during the meeting. After quickly wrapping up a different application, the board began to discuss application 26-05.

ZBA’s Deliberations

Alan Clavette, chair of ZBA, began the meeting by reiterating the board’s objective: “This is, basically, a hearing for an alleged error of the notice of violation by a zoning enforcement officer. So, our role tonight is to determine whether the action by the zoning enforcement officer is conforming with our [regulations] or not.”

There were many issues that were discussed at the September meeting, like housing of animals, a possible pig farm, and others. Clavette said that his “feeling” is that Abbotts Hill Farm & Rescue is not being operated as an agrotourism business. He believes it is “more of a counseling, outdoor counseling thing combined with being with the animals.”

Clavette said he does not think it is being operated as a farm as the animals were rescued and nothing is being sold. Prerna Rao pointed out that the website declares the site as a farm and the state statute says that caring for animals can be classified as a farm.

Clavette then began to discuss the “pig farm.”

“I think when we think of ‘pig farm,’ we’re talking about people raising pigs for slaughter. I, personally, don’t believe that they’re operating [for this purpose] … they’re not slaughtering animals on the property, so I don’t know that I would agree with that particular item,” Clavette said to the board.

Rao said that she thinks the pigs “could be fairly characterized as pets” and “don’t count as farm animals necessarily.” Rao noted that the housing for the animals is in violation, but recalled the homeowners, Naomi and Victor Ribeiro, did agree to bring the housing into compliance with the 100-foot setbacks. Rao said that there should be a time limit for bringing the animal housing into compliance; Clavette agreed.

Tiffany Hawley reminded the board that at the September meeting, Naomi said she hoped to start that project but there was too much rain to really start it. Many other members recalled Naomi saying springtime next year is when she hopes the housing will comply with setbacks.

Clavette noted that the Ribeiros admitted to being in violation, so as a board they suggested June 30, 2027, which is exactly one year from the issue date of the notice of violation from Maguire.

Rachel Rowan then asked about the use of the animals. She said, “My only question was that the pigs have been prohibited in Newtown until 2023, and that year the provision was given for the pigs if there were four acres of land.”

Clavette chimed in saying that regulation is only for pig farms, and his opinion is that Abbotts Hill Farm & Rescue is not a pig farm. There was a debate between Stephen Riccitelli and Rowan about whether or not there is a difference between pets and farm animals. Rao said a subsection of the regulations gives permitted accessory uses, including nonagricultural use.

“I feel like it could be an interpretation of that particular section because the definition of the housing and care of pigs is under the general section that addresses non-residential use of the property as opposed to a residential use of the property,” Rao said.

Riccitelli said “that could open a whole other door.”

Rao then broke down Abbotts Hill Farm & Rescue, saying, “This is my understanding and interpretation of what was presented: There are animals that are under the umbrella of this nonprofit rescue, which is incidental to the therapist and counseling services that the petitioner’s running out of the home. And then, separately, we have pigs.”

Rowan explained that was not her understanding and that all the animals are for therapeutic uses. Rao and Clavette both said yes, all animals are used, but the pigs also count as pets. Rao compared the pigs to a dog: they can be used for therapy but are also family pets.

Clavette then moved to discuss the “crux” of the application: home business. In Newtown, only two people can be doing business indoors. Group activities are not allowed in Newtown’s zoning regulations for home business.

Rao read the regulation, “3.01.420 … There shall be no more than two non-family members or non-resident persons engaged in the office or home enterprise activity at any time.” Rao then recalled at the last meeting, Naomi said there are up to 25 people at one time. Rao also pointed out that the home business has to be inside or within accessory structures, while Naomi’s camps, classes, and workshops are primarily outside.

The board members then discussed how many violations there actually were and looked over Maguire’s violation notice. The members also debated on whether or not Abbotts Hill is agrotourism or a home business operation. Riccitelli said it is important to figure out everything because Naomi’s counseling business could be “essentially shut down.”

Rao said she loves what the Ribeiros are doing and it “seems like an amazing enterprise in general.” Clavette agreed, saying it is a “unique thing” that they are doing and “unfortunately our regs don’t recognize that at this point.”

Clavette then clarified that the board will vote on each violation, with the caveat that the Ribeiros are given time to bring the issues into compliance.

The Motions And Voting

The first motion agreed with Maguire’s finding that the housing of animals is too close to side yards, but is asking Land Use to give the Ribeiros until June 30 next year to bring the housing into compliance. The motion passed unanimously.

The second motion agreed with Maguire’s findings that there is a violation of manure storage, and is also asking Land Use to give until June 30 next year to comply. The motion passed unanimously.

The third motion agreed with Maguire’s findings that, though this property may meet the definition of agrotourism, there is not enough property and the Ribeiros do not have a variance, which is a violation. This motion passed unanimously as well.

The fourth motion disagreed with Maguire’s findings that there is a pig farm on the property. Again, there was much discussion regarding this motion. Rao reiterated that she thinks the pigs are pets. Clavette said that if there is no agrotourism business, and there is no farm, they are housing animals, which other people in town have. Rao said that after hearing all the evidence, she does not think Abbotts Hill Farm & Rescue is a pig farm. Hawley asked if removing the farm status may give them more flexibility. After much debate, the board voted on the motion and it passed unanimously.

The fifth, and final, motion agreed with Maguire’s findings that Naomi is in violation of operating a home occupation business due to the size of the activity.

Clavette said the regulations for home businesses are “pretty narrow, they’re not very flexible. I think I have no choice but to basically say the zoning enforcement officer is correct on this one.”

Rao said that she believed one-on-one services were offered at Abbotts Hill Farm & Rescue. She added that if there are one or two people receiving counseling services at a time, then there is no error.

“But to the extent that there is use beyond that or that doesn’t fit into the home occupation section, unfortunately,” Rao began to trail off, “I don’t think that there’s an error.”

Clavette asked if Rao wanted to make the motion. She said no, followed by, “I hate this.”

Riccitelli said that he did not see this as a separate violation that was noted. Clavette said it does not meet the definition of agrotourism, and falls more under home business, but is in violation of the home business regulations.

The fifth motion passed unanimously.

Clavette thanked everyone for their patience and noted that it was a “difficult one.”

Rao said, “We’re certainly not discouraging the folks from trying to continue what they’re doing.”

=====

Reporter Sam Cross can be reached at sam@thebee.com.