Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Animal Use Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Coventry board grants variances to Onepo Properties for animal pen and counts, with conditional buffer requirement
Summary
The Coventry Zoning Board granted Onepo Properties variances allowing up to 31 large animals and a 0‑foot pen setback from the property line and approved relief from the landscape buffer for the pen area, with a condition that the buffer be reinstated if the pen area is used later for industrial activities.
The Coventry Zoning Board voted to grant Onepo Properties LLC variances for an animal pen and associated dimensional relief at 405 Arnold Road, allowing a total of up to 31 large animals and a 0‑foot setback for the existing pen where the code requires a 50‑foot separation. The board also approved landscape buffer relief limited to the pen area but added a condition that the buffer must be reestablished if the pen area is later used for industrial activities.
Thomas Cronin, representing Onepo Properties, described the site as a largely industrial parcel used for a tree service operation with an existing barn and pen in the northeast corner. Cronin said the barn was permitted in 2017 and that the pen currently contains "about 20 alpacas, 5 donkeys, 4 sheep, and a couple goats," plus assorted geese and chickens. He told the board the animals have been on the site for years and that the applicant does not propose new construction or expansion; instead the request is to recognize the existing use and allow the status quo to continue.
Resident Joseph Fucci, who lives immediately abutting the property, urged denial of blanket relief and argued the current loss of required buffers and the growth of animals over time demonstrate a self‑created hardship. "Granting this variance would undermine the purpose of the ordinance," Fucci told the board, saying the proper remedy is enforcement and restoration of the buffer rather than permanent relief.
Town staff told the board the property had a notice of violation related to animal counts and tree removal; staff noted some remediation (concrete blocks, planting) had been done after recent erosion. Staff also said its numeric counts differed from the applicant’s on the record but that the discrepancy did not change staff’s findings. The board discussed limiting relief to the pen area and adding conditions to prevent a future industrial intensification without reestablishing the buffer.
After public comment and deliberation the board made two separate motions: one to permit the applicant to retain the current number of large animals (31) and the 0‑foot pen setback to the property line, and a second motion granting buffer relief for the pen area with the expressed stipulation that if the pen area is later used for industrial activities the landscape buffer must be reestablished. Both motions passed by roll call vote.
