Sweet Peet hearing: Saving farms and rural culture

The first session of the public hearing on the appeal of the zoning permit was held Nov. 23 by the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA). About 100 people attended (for an article on that hearing, go to The Lakeville Journal Web site at tcextra.com and click on the Cornwall page). The second session of the public hearing, held Dec. 14 in the Cornwall Consolidated School gym, attracted about 85 people and lasted two hours, marking a total of five hours of testimony. In addition, a large amount of written comment has submitted. When is a farm really a farm?

One question that the O’Flinns and attorney Robert Alessi have raised is whether the production of Sweet Peet is actually an agricultural operation. To make the mulch, wood shavings are collected from area stables and piled up at the farm (there are regulations governing the dimensions of the piles). The shavings are occasionally turned and they are saturated with tannin water leeched from the pine shavings. This gives the peet its distinctive dark coloration. The finished mulch is then trucked out. Sweet Peet production will be limited to a 3-acre portion of the farm. State Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) regulations say that the site can hold no more than 5,000 cubic yards of raw material.

Those who oppose the project say the main issue is the question of whether or not Sweet Peet is an agricultural activity. Attorney Alessi said issues of truck traffic, safety and environmental impacts were also brought into the mix because an aggrievement needs to be shown. But he said a decision needs to be made based on a determination of how the proposed operation fits with the definition of agriculture, as defined by case law in the state. He also claims that the zoning enforcement officer never explained how she decided this was an agricultural use.

The O’Flinns and Reddington are appealing the general zoning permit issued by Zoning Enforcement Officer Karen Nelson. A zoning permit is required on all projects, whether they comply with zoning regulations or need a special permit or variance. Nelson said she received a determination from the Planning and Zoning Commission that the Sweet Peet proposal was in compliance with regulations for agricultural use. At Monday’s hearing, in response to a question from Zoning Board of Appeals members, Nelson said she reached her decision based on advice from the Planning and Zoning Commission, and based on her own opinions that Sweet Peet production is an agricultural activity. She said that the Sweet Peet work can also be considered an accessory use to Cream Hill Farm, which would also allow it under zoning regulations. When asked if there were similar activities in Cornwall that would fit the same profile, Nelson referred to Richard Dolen’s farm on Cherry Hill Road, which purchases, stores, sells and trucks out hay.

Wojtusiak commented that the O’Flinns, in their appeal, claim the applicants acknowledged it is not an agricultural use by applying for a permit. Charlie Gold said they filed the request for the permit because they were asked to do so by the Department of Environmental Protection, as part of its process.

"We weren’t looking at it as an application for a special permit," he said.

New faces to the podium included North Canaan farmers Matthew Freund and David Jacquier, who offered their support. Both are part of a local farming cooperative formed to deal with manure. They spoke of how much farmers need to rely on each other. Jacquier noted he leases hayfields on Cream Hill, which generates the same type of intermittent truck traffic as the composting operation would generate. The two sides are at odds over the amount of truck traffic the project will generate.

A 14-page report by engineer Bruce Hilton, of Traffic Engineering Solutions, P.C., states that, on an annual basis, 334 to 2,000 trucks (depending on truck size) will haul raw material into the site during two 45-day periods. Finished product will be removed by 280 to 700 trucks, during two one-to-two-week periods. Alessi said the calculations are based on numbers in the applicants’ business plan, and that the math is simple. He said the Golds were being misleading by spreading the numbers out over 365 days. Charlie Gold said those calculations are wrong, and are based on smaller truck sizes than stated in the business plan. The need to haul product in and out will vary more than the opponents are indicating in their calculations, he said. Gold said his group’s attorney, Peter Herbst (who was present at both hearing sessions but did not speak publicly), advised them that case law dictates traffic cannot be a determining factor here. That said, Gold said he has been bothered all along by the conclusion that all truck activity would be limited to two specific time periods.

"That makes about as much sense as saying a farmer milks his cows once a day because the milk truck comes once a day."

He went on to explain that, much as a dairy farmer will milk as needed and store for later shipment, the Sweet Peet operation will have smaller piles finished product ready for shipment at shorter intervals. He claimed there will be no more than 280 trucks per year, and noted that traffic will come up and depart both ends of Cream Hill, leading to a far smaller number of trucks.

Gold has spent months visiting his Cream Hill neighbors, trying to allay concerns and get everyone on the same page. He expressed frustration about the opposition to the permit, saying it is simply a matter of "not in my backyard."

"I have to question whether or not some of the opposition is abusing the right to appeal, particularly in the last two months," he added. He referred to a document that the opponents to the plan sent to the Zoning Board of Appeals in which they asked if the board members "would be as supportive if it were on your road."

The comments also suggested the "Cornwall Bridge farm," which Gold said he assumed to be Stone Wall Dairy, would be a more appropriate site.

"That implies the project is acceptable, just not on their road," he concluded.

In turn, Alessi inferred there were improprieties during the application process that allowed the permit to be pushed through. He said that site development began before approvals were given, that the applicants met informally with Planning and Zoning, and that changes have been made to the proposal along the way. Potentially weighing heavily on a ZBA decision will be comments by P&Z Attorney Steven Byrne, which both sides see as speaking to their advantage. The Journal will expand on this and other aspects of the appeal in the Dec. 24 issue.