At their Sept 29 meeting, the P&Z commission reviewed an application from two LLCs – Fox Trot Farm, LLC and Silverheels Farms, LLC – to increase the number of horses on the former Kelsey Farm from 14 to 24.
In order to modify the conditions of a 1979 Special Exception granted by the P&Z Board of Appeals the applicant requires a Final Site Plan and Special Permit.
The farm is located on adjacent properties at 1014 and 1016 Lake Ave, with a combined total of 9.48 acres, in the R-4 zone.
P&Z chair Margarita Alban referred to a “much loved,” and “long established use” at the farm, which operated as Kelsey Farm for decades.
However, she said her commission wanted to keep the zoning “clean.”
Key to the discussion was the amount of land required per horse, which originated when horses foraged in pastures through continuous grazing.
She said based on today’s feeding standards the CT Dept of Agriculture advises that strict square-footage or acreage caps per animal are outdated.
“I think originally those zoning laws were designed because horses lived off the land. That’s not the case now,” said the applicant Ruth Nicodemus. “Their food is brought to them. They have expensive hay. They have supplements, massages, acupuncturist.”
Wetland Upland Review Area and Manure
Ann Noel Jones mentioned drinking water and asked about horses in the wetlands the wetlands upland review area.
Attorney John Tesei said staff from Wetlands had raised no concerns when they visited the property in August and saw the pasture land.
Alban said she had forwarded the most recent (2011) set of state of environmentally appropriate guidelines for the keeping of horses to the town Conservation Dept for review.
“I would like to hear back from them once they’ve had a chance to read the guidelines,” she said.
“That goes to Ann Noel Jones question about how far a horse would be allowed go to pasture, because there is waste,” Alban said.
“There are paddocks that are far from the wetlands URA and also paddocks that are close to the wetlands,” the applicant, Ruth Nicodemus said. “That’s where the manure removal plan comes in.”
“We have staff that clean manure out of stalls three to four times a day and have it removed once every five or six days,” she added.
“There are pastures in the URA,” said deputy P&Z director Tracy Kulikowski said. “Conservation and Wetlands staff know that.”
Lessons, Site Work, Construction, Trailering
Initially Ms Nicodemus’ application sought to add lessons to what was approved in 1979, but she said changed her mind and was content with the original condition allowing no more than 8 riding classes per week with no more than 6 students per class.
There are no plans for site work, new structures, or additions to existing structures on site.
The commission had concern about horses coming and going on trailers, and Ms Alban noted horse trailers are not allowed on the Merrit Parkway.
“If you had trailer volume you would impact the town in general,” Alban said. You’re not going to be trailering in and out. You’re not going to have competition events.”
Ms Nicodemus said she had no plans for competitions on site or horses coming and going from the site on trailers.
Commissioner Mary Jenkins apologized and regretted her concerns about the commercial nature of the operation and the change of ownership to a corporatio at the previous day’s staff briefing.
“This is a question about use of the land, not ownership,” Jenkins said.
“The fact that the persons living in a residence are employees rather than a family is completely irrelevant.”
There is a single family house on the property and a cottage.
Ms Nicodemus said the intention was for a property manager and four grooms to live on site.
While Town Planner Pat LaRow said the regs allow a single person and two boarders in a single family house, attorney Tesei said the property was a special exception use, not a single family use for the property.
“It’s not unlike a school,” Tesei said. “Maybe more like a traditional farm. It goes back to the special exception.”
Arm Welles asked what work or construction was proposed on the property.
“It’s more cosmetic. We’ve done a lot of painting, polyurethaning and staining,” Nicodemus said.
“And you re-graded the ring?” Alban said. “We have pictures of a barn being worked on and grading in the ring.”
“The grading was stopped before it started,” Nicodemus said.
Mr. Tesei said the applicant had worked with Ms Kulikowski and town environmental analyst Devon Healy, and agreed to have the property surveyed.
He said engineer Tony D’Andrea had completed the required survey and delineated the location of the Wetlands Upland Review Area and the survey had been delivered to the Wetlands Agency earlier in the day.
Tesei said the survey confirmed that no wetlands permit was required because there was no work within the 150 foot upland review area.
Commissioner Arn Welles asked whether the Greenwich Riding and Trails Association (GRTA) horse trail system was used by the applicant.
“I haven’t yet,” Nicodemus said. “The intention is to make a path within the farm.”
Ms Nicodemus said her horses were currently in Redding, and were required to be removed by Oct 15.
“Rent there, mortgage here,” she said.
Public Comment
Alban said there was a great deal of written public comment submitted during the day of the meeting in support of the applicant.
“We’ve heard from the neighbors. That’s very important to us,” Alban said. “The community supports you and doesn’t find you intrusive as a use, which would be our greatest concern is to protect the community.”
Robin Bodell described the activity with horses as fitting with the “essence of Greenwich.”
“There’s all kinds of benefits from having Ruth and her partner operate this farm and improve its facilities.”
Stefanie Lacoff, a neighbor, also testified in support.
“Kelsey Farm, now Serenity Farm, must remain a staple of back country Greenwich,” Lacoff said. “I’m also a realtor in town. People come to back country for the horses, for this environment and we have to have horses at Kelsey Farm, which will now be Serenity Farm. It’s a must.”
Lacoff said her own application to P&Z back in 2002 concerned horses and wetlands.
“Tom Heagney helped me with that. Two years of fighting the Town on getting permission to have my horses because they said I was too close to the wetlands. He won that case for me, and I had my horses within the wetlands – paddocks were in the wetlands. That shouldn’t be an issue at all.”
Under Connecticut law, horse pasturing and grazing in inland wetlands is permitted “as of right,” meaning it is generally exempt from local inland wetlands permitting requirements.
The state’s Inland Wetlands and Watercourses Act (CGS § 22a-40(a)(1)) explicitly allows farming activities, including grazing, in wetlands and watercourses without a permit.
Because the legal definition of “farming” under CGS § 1-1(q) explicitly includes the “raising, feeding, caring for, training and management of livestock, including horses,” this exemption applies whether someone operates a commercial stable or keeps a single horse in their backyard.
However, this exemption comes with critical conditions, limitations, and potential liabilities:
1. Fencing is Allowed, But Structures Are Regulated
• Fences: You are legally permitted to install pasture fencing through a wetland area.
• Structures: The “as of right” exemption does not apply to buildings. Horse barns, shelters, paddocks, or permanent run-in sheds can not be constructed directly on a wetland or watercourse without obtaining a permit from the town’s Inland Wetlands Commission.
2. The Right to Farm vs. Clean Water & Nuisance Laws
While grazing is “as of right” in a wetland, that does not include the right to pollute the water or structurally disrupt the land.
• Water Pollution: The Connecticut Department of Agriculture notes that the Right to Farm protections do not shield a horse owner from liability if the operation causes water pollution or a nuisance due to negligence. [1]
• Manure Management: Stockpiles of manure must be kept on impermeable material and significantly set back from wetlands and wells to prevent runoff contamination. [1]
3. Practical Risks & Best Practices
Even though the law allows it, the University of Connecticut (UConn) Extension strongly advises horse owners to fence horses out of fragile wetland areas whenever possible. [1, 2]
• Pasture Damage: The heavy, cutting impact of horse hooves quickly destroys wet soil, kills forage grass, and creates deep mud conditions. [1]
Ms Kelsey testified that her goal was to avoid her property being developed
She said she had only learned in June that she was supposed to have 14 instead of 18 horses and hadn’t been in compliance for 37 years based on exceeding a one horse per 20,000 sq ft rule.
“I had always been told you could have two horses per acre,” she said. “I thought I was totally in compliance.”
Ms Kelsey has confirmed she has never had a problem despite having exceeded the one-per-20,000 sq ft.
“The reason we have that is we didn’t want people to have horses on properties that were less than an acre,” Alban said. “The moment we had 20,000 sq ft you couldn’t have anything less than an acre. Because the next zone down is 12,000 sq ft. So that way you could be sure you didn’t end up with a horse jammed into someone’s tiny back yard.”
Alban asked Mr. Tesei to revise his application narrative to explain details of the operating plan and its consistency with the 1979 ZBA decision, and to include the time of day of lessons, and, per the 1979 agreement, that there will be no site lighting at night, not trailering, feeding, details on handling waste, and all the details of operation. She asked for details on sufficient exercise in the ring and how feeding patterns work.
The commission did not vote on the application.
Alban said the application would be on the P&Z Oct 14 meeting agenda and the commission would issue a decision that night.