Loading...
69 ORCHARD STREET - ZBA 6 9 C�r��2r,�-d ��r..�- ,i � � � Zoning Board Proiect Status Sheet Address & Applicant: Q,r 614 . LLWL, Date Submitted to BOA: 14 2"'Clerk Stamp: 2- Variances Variances Only - Constructive Approval Date: (IOU days from filing) Abutters List Requested: V' Abutters Notice Sent: z� Notice to Abutting Cities & Towns, Councillors: o/'Legal Notice posted at City Hall: (I ,days before meeting) Legal Notice Emailed & Confirmed: fS-�/Legal Notice Posted on Web: Agenda to Applicant: Applicant's email address or fax number to send agenda: Opened at Meeting: 3�IK 201 Continued Meetings: Extension Form(s) Signed & Clerk Stamped? Closed at Meeting: 3ZI t l4 Decision: N�i Decision Filed: I Appeal Period Over: 5/6/14 (2r day after decision filed) ❑ Decision Sent to Applicant: ❑ Notice of Decision Sent to abutters, cities and towns, councillors: V -y CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEAL _MIN6_ 120 WASHINGPON St'ac•:r.r ♦ SN.Ii;\I,iNL�ssAc:riusP:Yts 01970 KniHiuuxxDiuscou. RAE:978-745-9595 ♦ Fnx:978-740-984dp14 ApH 15 P 27 39 ALWOR L FILE # April 15, 2014 CITY CLERK. SALEM, MASS. Decision City of Salem Board of Appeals Petition of MICHELE CONWAY for an administrative appeal of a decision of the Building Commissioner regarding agricultural use of the property, for the property at 69 ORCHARD ST (112 ' Zoning District). A public hearing on the above Petition was opened on March 19, 2014 pursuant to M.G.L Ch. 40A, § 11. The hearing was closed on that date with the following Salem Board of Appeals members present: Ms. Curran (Chair), Mr. Dionne, Mr. Duffy, Mr. Watkins, and Mr. Tsitsinos (alternate). The Petitioner seeks an Appeal of the Decision of the Building Inspector, and petitions the Board to find that the keeping of chickens on her property does not constitute an agricultural use. Statements of fact: 1. Michele Conway, petitioner, and Jim Adams, abutter at 5 Manning Street, presented the petition for the property at 69 Orchard Street (112—Residential Two Family Zone). . 2. In the petition, date-stamped February 25, 2014, the Petitioner requests an Appeal of the Decision of the Building Inspector, and petitions the Board to allow the keeping of chickens on their property, by finding that the keeping of chickens in this instance does not constitute an agricultural use. 3. The requested relief,if granted,would alloxv the Petitioner to keep chickens on their property. 4. The petitioner does not sell eggs laid by the chickens. 5. At the public hearing for this petition, 27 residents - including Councilor Josh Turiel, Councilor David Eppley, and Councilor Beth Gerard - spoke in support of the Board granting the appeal, and two (2) residents spoke in opposition to the appeal. In addition, the Board received 10 letters in support of granting the appeal, including a letter from Councilor-at-Large William H. Legault, and a petition in support of granting the appeal which was signed by 14 residents. The Salem Board of Appeals, after careful consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing, and after thorough review of the petition including the narrative the Petitioner's presentation, and public testimony, makes the following findings: 1. The chickens at 69 Orchard Street are being kept as pets. The eggs are not sold, and therefore cannot be considered an agricultural use, as defined by Chapter 128, Section IA. 2. The keeping of chickens has become customary. 3. The keeping of chickens is currently vaguely addressed in Salem's Zoning Ordinance. The Salem City Council and the Board of Health should establish an ordinance that clearly addresses and regulates the keeping of chickens. On the basis of the above findings of fact and all evidence presented at the public hearing including, but not limited to, the plans, documents and testimony, the Salem Board of Appeals concludes: City of Salem Board of Appeals April 15,2014 Project: 69 Orchard Street Page 2 of 2 1. An agricultural use does not exist and the order of the Building Commissioner to cease the use is therefore overturned. In consideration of the above, the Salem Board of Appeals voted four (4) in favor (Ms. Curran, Mr. Dionne, Mr. Watkins, and Mr. Tsitsinos) and one (1) opposed (Mr. Duffy), to grant the petitioner's request to Appeal the Decision of the Building Commissioner. Rebecca Curran, Chair Board of Appeals A COPS'OF THIS DECISION ELAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PL.-INNING BOARD AND THE CITY CLERK Appeal Jmm this decision, if any, shall be made pursuant to Section 17 of the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall hefiled within 20 days of filing of this decision in the once of the City Clerk. Pursuant to the Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the Variance or Special Permit granted herein shall not take effect until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk has been filed with the Essex South Registry of Deeds. l RECEIVED FFR ? 2014 CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEALS DEPT.,-Qoi�`r:�,Q,y4 "�°".i,3 PETITION FORM coMm " Y <� CITY OF SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 'fs�� BOARD OF APPEALS j � 120 WASHINGTON STREET,31m FLOOR SALEM,MASSACHUSETTS 01970 r7 N Thomas St Pierre,Director of Inspectional Services e Phone:978-619-5641 /Fax: 978-740--9846 n s r -n Ktrtaeat,ev Da1sCOLL Dana Dlenon,Staff Planner m rn MAYOR Phone:978-619-5685/Fax: 978-740-0404 Z-1 Nm r-n TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS: �� D The Undersigned represent that he/she is/are the owners of a certain parcel of land located at.. 3 CHARD S x Address: (-� OR T _ Zoning District: An application is being submitted to the Board of Appeal for the following reason(s): This statement must describe what you propose to build,the dimensions,the zone property is in,and the zoning requirements.(6somple. 1 aiu proposing to construct a 10'x 10'one.story addition to my home located at 3 Salem Lane, in the R-2 Zoning District. The Zoning Ordinance requires the minimum depth ofthe rear yard to be 30,feet. The current depth ofnty rear yard is 32feet;the proposed addition would reduce the depth of the rear yard to 221eet.) —�lnF�t�- G"F T/fL` /3✓/L/!i^rG ZNLfP,Ec T6PZS SON/•vim (/iU LA7z/aN G/Tf17/on/ , �—�1i2 .9 /CuL7v>Zft L (/ SE O� �7S' 9lzo/7i_IzTY_ ;9 TU �}d- (SfF- Rirge,,, S7g7i_t1f�T� For this reason I am requesting: O Variance(s) from provisions of Section of the Zoning Ordinance,specifically from _ _(i.e, minimum depth of rear yard). What is allowed is U?sq/t?stories? %?), and what I am proposing is (j?sq ft?stories? %?). ( )A Special Permit under Section of the Zoning Ordinance in order to (vy Appeal of the Decision of the Building Inspector(described below): Zav/•mob /o�AP/ov Fn/2 fiGR/Cy�rtrtz9c 6-JE C/F �IZopF_RT� ( )Comprehensive Permit for construction of low or moderate income housing(describe below): ` o Why? Current Property Use:e7l.�JGCe �ar•r�t konEAre Lot Dimensions Included? Yes (�N. (Erampte:Two Funu(v Home) The Undersigned hereby petitions the Board of Appeals to vary the terms of the Salem Zoning Ordinance and allow the project to be constructed as per the plans submitted,as the enforcement of said Zoning By-Laws would involve practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship to the Undersigned and relief may be granted without substantially derogating from the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance. CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BOARD OF APPEALS PETITION FORM The following written statement has been submitted with this application: O For all Variance requests a written Statement of Hardship demonstrating the following must be attached: a) Special conditions and circumstances that especially affect the land, building,or structure involved, generally not affecting other lands, buildings,and structures in the same district; b) Literai enforcement of the provisions of the Ordinance would involved substantial hardship to the applicant;and c) Desirable relief may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good,and without nulli fyiag or substantially derogating from the intent of the district or the purpose of the ordinance. O For all Special Permit requests a Statement of Grounds must be attached. An application for a special permit for a nonconforming use or structure shall include a statement demonstrating how the proposed change shal I not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood in accordance with Section 9.4 Special Permits. Such a statement should include reference to the following criteria: a) Social,economic,or community needs served by the proposal; b) Traffic flow and safety, including parking and loading; c) Adequacy of utilities and other public services; d) Impacts on the natural environment,including drainage; e) Neighborhood character;and f) Potential fiscal impact, including impact on City tax base and employment. O For all Comprehensive Permits for construction of low or moderate income applicants should refer to M.G.L. Ch.40B §20-23. Previous applications to the Board of Appeals involving this property have been submitted with this petition form. The Building Commissioner can provide documentation ofprevious applications to the petitioner or his representative. I�7 ,r�r� If different from petitioner: Petitioner. 'C'C n& (mud) Property Owner: Address: l01 U�C.V1pR✓(t Address: Telephone: 1 t�)� — �ryp /"�pS1 Telephone: Email:_IY��I�chL�� �gQL' .I�.l,nn� Email: Signature: W" G:mm = Signature:_ � (At(acbed coasetu lever is olio acmytobie) Date:�__a� - i _ Date: lfdierent from petitioner: Representative:_ A TRUE Address: ATTEST Telephone:_ Signature: Date: CITY CLERK DATE DPCD DATE This original application must he filed with the City Clerk Dear ZBA Members: I have been a city resident for the last 7 years. In those years of home ownership,I have been become an avid gardener,and have attempted to "go green"wherever possible.I have purchased a rain barrel and compost bin from the city, and have built 13 raised beds in my backyard where I grow many of my own vegetables. In April of 2013,after much research to confirm that I was within City of Salem Ordinances, I purchased a chicken coop and 5 backyard hens. First,on April 18, 2013,shortly after the arrival of my chickens, Mr.St. Pierre sent me a letter stating that my"chicken coop" needed to be 5 ft.from the property line,citing zoning ordinance 3.2.4. 1 immediately complied and moved the coop. In his letter, he stated nothing regarding keeping of chickens constituting a violation of any city zoning ordinances. On November 7, 2013; 1 received another letter from Mr.St. Pierre, stating that I was in violation of zoning ordinance 3.2.1 and that my coop needed to be 100 feet from the property line,contradicting his first letter. l contacted Mr.St. Pierre after I received this letter and assured him that my chickens were my pets, and I was not running an agricultural operation. I have never sold anything that 1 raise or grow, including eggs from the chickens. Mr. St. Pierre was citing a zoning ordinance for agricultural use of my land. On December 17, 2013, 1 received a third letter from Mr.St.Pierre, ordering me to cease and desist the agricultural use of my land. He stated that my only recourse is to go before the city of Salem zoning board of appeals. requested copies of the complaints Mr.St. Pierre has received from neighbors,which he references in his letters to me. He provided me with copies of emaiis back and forth between himself and one neighbor(the only complaining neighbor),in which he writes to my neighbor, "The abutters answered the complaint letter citing a case a few years ago from Federal Street in which I tried to enforce the same regulation in that case the chicken owner filed an appeal with the ZBA.The ZBA came to the conclusion that the chickens were pets and not agriculture..(I believe the ZBA got it wrong)". In an email back to Mr. St. Pierre, my neighbor writes, "it seems clear the ZBA incorrectly interpreted the law." All other abutting neighbors,and many neighbors in close proximity,enjoy the fact that I have backyard chickens. They visit them frequently,and occasionally help with their care. I respectfully request the Zoning Board's help in reestablishing the ZBA 2008 decision that backyard chickens are family pets and that having several backyard chickens as pets is not considered agricultural use of my land. Sinrerely, 1 Mlichele Conway "`' T''� QTY OF SALEM, NWSAC�JSETTS BUILDING DEPARTMENT 120 WASHINGTON STREET, 3RD FL(- ! TEL. (978) 745-9595 FAX(978) 740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR THOMAS STTIERRE DmECCOR OF PUBLIC PROPERTY/BUILDING COMMISSIONER April 18, 2013 Michele Conway 69 Orchard Street Salem Ma. 01970 Dear Owner, This office has received and confirmed a complaint regarding a chicken coop that is located in your side yard. City of Salem Zoning Ordinance,section 3.2.4 requires an"accessory structure"to be located 5 feet from the lot line and 10 feet from the principal structure. You are directed to correct the location of this shed. Failure to comply with this order will result in Municipal code tickets . If you wish to appeal my zoning interpretation, your appeal is to the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals. If you have any questions, please contact me directly. Thomas .Pierre I� Building Commissioner/Director of Inspectional Services CITY OF SALEM, MASSAQ lUSEM j,: x. x' BUILDING DEPARTMENT 120 WASHINGTON STREET,3'"'FLOOR `•fit, . 'ISL. (978) 745-9595 KIMBERLEYDRISCOLL FAX(978) 740-9846 MAYOR THoNLAS STYIERRE DIRE CTOR OF PUBLIC PROPERTY/BUILDING COMMISSIONER November 7 ,2013 Michele Conway 69 Orchard Street Salem Ma. 01970 Re: zoning violation Dear Owner, This Department has received complaints related to your keeping of chickens. Specifically, the location of the chicken coop. Salem Zoning Ordinance section 3.2.1 (2) states the following "No storage of manure or odor producing or dust producing substance and no building in which faun animals are kept shall be permitted within 100 feet of any property line. You are directed to contact this office to discuss this violation. If you wish to appeal my interpretation of Salem Zoning,your appeal is to the Salern Zoning Board of Appeals. ThomasTerre Ur�44V n/�/`�� Building Commissioner/Director of Inspectional Services ;;, "s- " CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS JI, s BUiLDING DEPARTMENT �-tfbl � ; 120 WASHINGTON STREET,3AD FLOOR TEL. (978)745-9595 I( MBERL.EY DRISCOLL FAX(978)740-9846 MAYOR THOMAS STTIERRE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROPERTY/BUILDING CON IISSIONER December 17.2013 Michele Conway 69 Orchard Street Salem Ma. 01970 Re: zoning violation Dear Owner, This Department is still receiving complaints regarding your keeping of chickens.. I have discussed the issue with the Assistant City Solicitor . She agrees that your agricultural use is not classified as "exempt'nor is a Special Permit available due to the property being located in the R-2 zone . At this time you are directed to cease and desist the agricultural use , if you feel you are aggrieved by this order, your appeal is to the Salem Zoning Board of Appeals. Failure to address this issue will result in Municipal Code lines and further enforcement actions. Thomrl�4,-Ivw Tiierre Building Commissioner/Director of Inspectional Services :TK .S\ CITY OF SALEM MASSAG 1CJSETTS BUILDING DEPAPTMEI T {. 1 7 120 WASHINGTON STREET,3"D FLOOR TEL. (978) 745-9595 FAX(978) 740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCY)LL MAYOR _ THOMAS ST,PIERRE DIRECTOR OF PUBLICPROPERTY/BUILDING GDMM]SSIONER February 11, 2014 Michelle Conway 69 Orchard Street Salem Ma. 01970 re:zoning violation Dear Ms. Conway, I am in receipt of you letter and I am aware of the conversation that you had with Assistant City Solicitor, Robin Stein. As Ms, Stein pointed out, there is a process under Mass State Zoning Law 40A that sets the frame+ork for local zoning regulations and the enforcement of these regulations.The City Council approves zoning changes and regulations .I do not. It is my job to act on a complaint of an alleged zoning violation ( by Statute within 14 days) and to determine if a violation exists. Both parties have a right to petition the Zoning Board of Appeals . The complainant, if they think I am not enforcing the zoning regulations and yourself, if you feel y0J are aggrieved by my interpretation. I have made my interpretation and the fact that you disagree means that you have the right to appeal to the zoning board of appeals,not anywere else. Based on the outcome of the ZBA hearing you or the complaintant can then file an appeal to Court. You have again missed the deadline to ti le your appeal for the February meeting. If an appeal is not filed for the March hearing, I will start daily Files and further enforcement actions. Sincerely, Thom St.Pierre Building Commissioner/Zoning Officer January 14, 2014 . Michele Conway 69 Orchard St, Salem, Ma 01970 781-718-8578 Dear Mr. St. Pierre, I am very disheartened at your opinion that I am running an agricultural operation at 69 Orchard Street and your sending me a cease and desist order. I would like to provide you with some information regarding my decision to keep pet chickens, and the process I went through with the City of Salem. From the start, 1 have followed all the proper channels in becoming a pet chicken owner in Salem. I first called the Director of the Board of Health, and he told me there were no rules in Salem against keeping backyard chickens. I also reached out to the animal control officer several times, leaving voicemails inquiring if there were any regulations for keeping backyard chickens. I never received any call back. I also researched the city of Salem website, and found that in minutes from a May 21, 2008 ZBA meeting , a chicken owner in Salem won her case with the zoning board and that she was allowed to keep her chickens, because they were her pets. Since my situation was exactly the same, I was getting chickens as pets, I was in compliance with Salem zoning ordinances, based on the zoning board's 2008 decision. I purchased my chicken coop, and inadvertently placed it less than 5 feet from my property line. When I received the first letter from you dated April 18, 2013, stating that zoning ordinance section 3.2.4 requires an accessory structure to be located 5 feet from the lot line, I immediately moved my chicken coop to be in compliance of the zoning ordinance. In your letter, you referenced my structure by name, calling it a "chicken coop". I must assume that when you conducted your due diligence and came to my property to visually inspect the location of the coop, before you sent the letter, you saw my 5 pet chickens. Nowhere in this first letter did you state that I was in violation of any other zoning ordinance, nor that I could not keep chickens on my property. I did not hear anything else from your office regarding my pet chickens until 7 months later when I received a second letter dated November 7, 2013. In this letter, you cited a different ordinance, and now informed me that my coop must be 100 feet from my property line, contradicting your first letter on April 18. As directed in your letter, I contacted you and informed you that my chickens were my pets, and I was not running any sort of farming operation, as implied by citing Zoning ordinance 3.2.1 which is an ordinance that applies to Customary Agricultural, Horticultural, and Floricultural Operations. This ordinance does not apply to backyard pets. The zoning board of appeals very clearly stated this in the appeal of your 2008 decision (where you cited the resident for violating the same ordinance 3.2.1) regarding another chicken owner in Salem. In this case, the Tuttle family won their appeal with the zoning board, 5-0. My situation is exactly the same as the 2008 Tuttle case. In the minutes of this case, Assistant City Solicitor Robin Stein is quoted as saying she does not feel that the primary use in this case is for a food source, so backyard pet chickens are not in violation of zoning ordinance 3.2.1. Although you have never contacted me to inquire, I assure you that the primary use of my pet chickens is NOT as a food source. I am gainfully employed, full-time, as a Sales Representative, and do not sell any of the things I raise and grow on my property. Gardening, and owning chickens as pets, are both hobbies I passionately enjoy. If your interpretation of the zoning ordinance 3.2.1 is correct, then residents cannot raise anything on their property that they consume. This means no vegetable gardens would be permitted if the residence were consuming the vegetables that they grow. In your last letter dated December 17, you ordered me to cease and desist the agricultural use. As I am NOT using my property for agricultural use, I do not see how I can cease and desist something I am NOT doing. I did receive copies of the complaints that I had requested from you regarding my pet chickens. After reading the emails, it is clear that it is one neighbor that has taken up a campaign to get rid of my pets. No other neighbor has ever complained to me about my pet chickens, and on the contrary, they have expressed their joy in having chickens in the neighborhood. Several neighborhood children come to visit the chickens on a regular basis and one neighbor cares for my chickens when I am out of town. Mr. St. Pierre, the zoning board interpreted Zoning Ordinance 3.2.1 to pertain to an "operation" and not a few backyard pets or a backyard vegetable garden, and I plead with you to re-consider your decision. As I stated, per the zoning board's interpretation, I am NOT in violation of this ordinance, and cannot cease and desist something I am not doing. From your statements in your email to my neighbor who is complaining, clearly you do not agree with the zoning board's interpretation of zoning ordinance 3.2.1 in 2008. Please do not drag me into your dispute with the zoning board. I believe you need to take up your dispute with the zoning board directly, and not involve me, causing me to incur a $575 expense for an appeal, which is a financial hardship for me. One over-entitled neighbor does not have the power to supersede a zoning board's interpretation of zoning ordinances. Perhaps my neighbor needs to look into changing the zoning laws if they feel chickens should not be allowed in the city of Salem, but as the zoning ordinances stand now, backyard chickens ARE allowed. As you know, if they do take up this cause, they will have quite a fight, and will most likely lose, because there are numerous households with backyard chickens as pets in the city of Salem, as well as neighbors who support these backyard pets. In my small neighborhood alone, there are 4 households with backyard chickens, and I have had 2 neighbors who have expressed interest in getting backyard chickens. I do not feel that it is just that I have to pay $575 to present my case, when I have never been afforded the opportunity to discuss it with you face-to- face, before you made your decision. Sincerely, ichele Conway CC: Mayor Driscoll Robin Stein ' ^ ^ Kris tin,%t* 8� �1.p71' � j. virwioa 4. let you k^:x when | �pf-akwith heianawa/+ efi I ie0i� ni,io:sahihi,;.vhy { ,oad* ihe �/�fo�:ecoendec/sio/) t,, Iasi i/rn�, i,� U otareavg; ;,VtheI5� �rd�ioo+ �ox �kan �ppea/�c �op�,|u/ �^u� U/���'ixu»�e|yja�` �o�a\va��o�an; ��a�uoe �tai mi!vv/sme1^Aypeaia: zhaJkrision. From: Kristin [un1v Sent: Monday, November 25, 2O1] 956AM To: Thomas St. Pierre; Kevin Cordy Subject: RE: Chicken complaint- follow up. Hi Tom, VVefound the Federal Street case you referenced; itseems clear the ZBA incorrectly interpreted the law.As areminder, the abutter isusing the chickens 3s8food source, and the definition ofagricultural applies toboth commercial AND personal use. Domesticated pets are not used 6safood source, and are subject tocity enforced vaccination and licensure requirements. Please let usknow ifany Movement has occurred with this case. Best wishes, Kristin Cordy From: To: � � Subject: RE: Chicken complaint- follow up. � Date: Thu, 21 Nov Z01322:1O:l5 +0000 Nisdn, TkeabuUer, ao�«jeredthe sfew��a/sago to/(n Fsd*ra|Sireefin \rh|ch | tried tothesa/ne ;e5y|a;on, hthat Jhecbicke,� :uxx�r�|cd �n �ppea| with ��o �8ATl�eZBAc�roe�n�krconi;"�:ntha1the chick­ns � were ootaXicu|1u^e.( ! :-,e|ievethei1wnong). ik�v�- the Asdsticl [!ty Solicitor looking al .aseand should esponsc: x/|dina few days. Plex,�estay in � 'ouch. Tom � From: Kristin Cordy Sent: Thursday, NovernberZ1, 2O1] 11:Z4AM To: Thomas St. Pierre; Kevin Cordy Subject: RE: Chicken complaint- follow up. Hi Tom, Just wanted to follow up; our neighbor's chicken coop is still on her property. I'm aware she has ]0days t0answer the citation; has there been anappeal request? We would like tObeaware O( any next steps. Thanks, 3 Dana Menon From: David Bowie <davidjbowie@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2014 9:47 PM To: Dana Menon Cc: Jennifer Bowie Subject: Salem Zoning board meeting for March 19 Greetings, I understand that there is an agenda item for addressing an administrative appeal of a decision of the Building Commissioner regarding agricultural use of the property, for the property at 69 Orchard St (R2 Zoning District). It is my understanding that this is in regards to a homeowner keeping chickens on the property. I am also a homeowner in Salem, I also have chickens. I have had chickens for the last 15 years in the Willows, and have had nothing but favorable results. The girls are clean, fastidious, keep bugs, ticks and rodents away from the house and help maintain my garden. They provide eggs which we use in our family meals. They also provide a source of pride and entertainment for the neighborhood. My girls are pets, and provide emotional support as well as benefits in my garden and on my breakfast table. I would be very disappointed if the city were to consider restricting my ability to keep my small flock. There are no disease issues with a homeowner flock of chickens, and the benefits far outweigh the minor inconvenience of their messy way of clearing a yard of grubs. I would appreciate any information you can shed on this agenda item. I will not be able to make the meeting, but I would like to voice my strong support for the ability of the residents of Salem to maintain a flock appropriate for the needs of the family, and my sincere hope that this appeal be denied. Regards, David Bowie 14 Beach Ave. Salem MA 01970 \ 1 William H. Legault Councillor at-Large City of Salem, Massachusetts To The Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals, The property at 69 Orchard Street is very familiar to me. My Grandfather built that home in 1926 as a wedding present for my Grandmother. I spent many a Saturday afternoon there mowing the lawn and tending to their gardens and bushes. It is my official and personal opinion that the previous ruling of your board on 21 MAY 2008 should stand. If the homeowner and chicken keeper is meeting the criteria established in that ruling then they should be allowed to keep and care for their chickens. Thank You. William H. Legault Councillor at-Large City of Salem, Massachusetts PETITION TO OVERTURN BUILDING INSPECTOR'S RULING ON AGRICULTURAL USE OF 69 ORCHARD ST. We, the undersigned abutters and neighbors of Michele Conway of 69 Orchard St. in Salem unanimously agree that Ms. Conway is not running an agricultural operation. We are in support of her maintaining pet chickens and a garden on her property. We further exclaim that Ms Conway exhibits the utmost care for her property and has been a helpful and conscientious neighbor for as long as we have been acquainted. We enjoy the presence of her coop, pet chickens and garden at her residence and feel they all add positively to the fabric of the neighborhood. NAME ADDRESS DATE 1�I Mri /f_/ 9li.S i 1-?✓N, i_ ST :U �/ 3`/G�ZOicr %hJ���i� i1Q C's� , 3 0rc�jc�xl -ice. y �C , ��i�� 7✓� ��� D �� 3 /y- y 73 , 04"111RD Sr 3 - /g - 20/ /��� Zai q Dana Menon From: Peter maitland <phmait@aol.com> Sent: Friday, March 14, 2014 6:02 PM To: Dana Menon Subject: Chickens Peter Maitland will be there to support chickens in anyones backyard 1 RECEIVED Sharon M. Gardner MAR 1 8 2014 38 Ome Street DEPT.OF PLANNING& Salem,Massachusetts 01970 00WANTY DEVELOPMENT 978-744-6744 March 14, 2014 Salem Board of Appeal 120 Washington Street Salem,Massachusetts 01970 Re: Appeal of Michele Conway,69 Orchard Street Dear Ms. Curran,et al; I am unable to attend the March 19"'meeting, but wanted to state my,views of Ms. Conway's appeal. i I think the chicken coop full of chickens is not only fine,but also commendable. I would like to see conditions limiting the number of chickens to be kept, and requiring cleanliness and maintenance of the coop. There should be a variance created for 69 Orchard Street to decrease the required setback cerely, S aron Gardner i 1 Dana Menon From: Stacy Kilb <stacykilb@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2014 7:55 AM To: Beth Gerard; Dana Menon Subject: 'Backyard Agriculture" Hi Beth, Hi Dana, I am not sure I will be able to attend the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting tomorrow, but wanted to write in, in support of the current definition of small flocks of chickens as "pets," rather than °agriculture." I have no problems with chickens and we had a few of them growing up. In my experience they do not make much noise, certainly less than a barking dog, and as long as the coop and yard are kept clean, the chickens and people who care for them and live around them can be safe and healthy. They may even make yards safer by eating bugs and ticks that would otherwise be at best a nuisance and at worse a dangerous disease vector. And what could be better than a "pet" that produces delicious fresh eggs, better than anything you could buy at the store? I am also extremely concerned that they way "agriculture" is defined in the excerpt below: From 40A, Section 3 - exemptions: "For the purposes of this section, the term "agriculture" shall be as defined in section 1A of chapter 128 ..." From Section 1A of Ch128: "Section 1A. "Farming" or "agriculture" shall include farming in all of its branches and the cultivation and tillage of the soil, dairying, the production, cultivation, growing and harvesting of any agricultural, aquacultural, floricultural or horticultural commodities, the growing and harvesting of forest products upon forest land, the raising of livestock including horses, the keeping of horses as a commercial enterprise, the keeping and raising of poultry, swine, cattle and other domesticated animals used for food purposes, bees, fur-bearing animals, and any forestry or lumbering operations, performed by a farmer, who is hereby defined as one engaged in agriculture or farming as herein defined, or on a farm as an incident to or in conjunction with such farming operations, including preparations for market, delivery to storage or to market or to carriers for transportation to market." 1 It would appear to me from this excerpt, that vegetable gardens on residential property, growing produce for use in the home, would also count as "agriculture" in certain zoned areas. One could argue that neither the eggs from the chickens nor the vegetables grown in a garden are "commodities" to be sold, but still, it may be a logical outgrowth of that line of thinking. Salem has worked hard to become the "green community" it is today. Our Farmers' Market has grown and been a great asset to many, bringing easy access to local, sustainably produced food and products to all residents here. Yet, nothing is more sustainable than food that comes from your own backyard! Whichever direction this appeal goes in, I would urge some sort of change in the bylaws to allow for scale - a small flock of chickens, defined as a certain number per certain space, for example, and/or vegetable gardens are exempt from being defined as "agriculture." Thank you for taking the time to consider my input. I will eagerly await the results of tomorrow's meeting. Best, Stacy Kilb Environmental Educator "Passion for conservation and education" http://www.linkedin.com/in/stacyakilb 2 Dana Menon From: Kathy Karch <kkarch@pingree.org> Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2014 12:03 PM To: Stacy Kilb Cc: Beth Gerard; Dana Menon; salemsafe@googlegroups.com; Christopher Granniss Subject: Re: "Backyard Agriculture" Dear Beth and Dana, I also have serious concerns with the definition of agriculture shared below in Stacy's email. By that definition, a coy pond could be argued as aquaculture, a flower bed could be considered floriculture, and holly bushes (because they can be propagated via cuttings) could be considered horticulture. The definition is ridiculously vague as written. I will be attending the meeting and plan on speaking more at that time, but I wanted to make sure that the board be made aware of my concerns just in case. Sent from my iPad On Mar 18, 2014, at 7:54 AM, Stacy Kilb <stacvkilb rr gmail.com>wrote: Hi Beth, Hi Dana, I am not sure I will be able to attend the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting tomorrow, but wanted to write in, in support of the current definition of small flocks of chickens as "'pets," rather than "agriculture." I have no problems with chickens and we had a few of them growing up. In my experience they do not make much noise, certainly less than a barking dog, and as long as the coop and yard are kept clean, the chickens and people who care for them and live around them can be safe and healthy. They may even make yards safer by eating bugs and ticks that would otherwise be at best a nuisance and at worse a dangerous disease vector. And what could be better than a "pet" that produces delicious fresh eggs, better than anything you could buy at the store? I am also extremely concerned that they way "agriculture" is defined in the excerpt below: I From 40A, Section 3 - exemptions: "For the purposes of this section, the term "agriculture" shall be as defined in section 1 A of chapter 128 ..." From Section 1A of Ch128: "Section 1A. "Farming" or "agriculture" shall include farming in all of its branches and the cultivation and tillage of the soil, dairying, the production, cultivation, growing and harvesting of any agricultural, aquacultural, floricultural or horticultural commodities, the growing and harvesting of forest products upon forest land, the raising of livestock including horses, the keeping of horses as a commercial enterprise, the keeping and raising of poultry, swine, cattle and other domesticated animals used for food purposes, bees, fur-bearing animals, and any forestry or lumbering operations, performed by a farmer, who is hereby defined as one engaged in agriculture or farming as herein defined, or on a farm as an incident to or in conjunction with such farming operations, including preparations for market, delivery to storage or to market or to carriers for transportation to market." It would appear to me from this excerpt, that vegetable gardens on residential property, growing produce for use in the home, would also count as "agriculture" in certain zoned areas. One could argue that neither the eggs from the chickens nor the vegetables grown in a garden are "commodities" to be sold, but still, it may be a logical outgrowth of that line of thinking. Salem has worked hard to become the "green community" it is today. Our Farmers' Market has grown and been a great asset to many, bringing easy access to local, sustainably produced food and products to all residents here. Yet, nothing is more sustainable than food that comes from your own backyard! Whichever direction this appeal goes in, I would urge some sort of change in the bylaws to allow for scale - a small flock of chickens, defined as a certain number per certain space, for example, and/or vegetable gardens are exempt from being defined as "agriculture." Thank you for taking the time to consider my input. I will eagerly await the results of tomorrow's meeting. 2 Best, Stacy Kilb Environmental Educator "Passion for conservation and education" http://www.linkedin.com/in/stacyakilb 3 Dana Menon From: Geoffrey Millar <geoffrmillar@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2014 12:27 PM To: Dana Menon Subject: 69 Orchard St Dear Ms. Menon and the ZBA: I'm writing regarding the administrative appeal of the building commissioner's determination of agricultural use of 69 Orchard Street. The board made a clear and unanimous statement that backyard chickens do not rise to the level of agricultural use in the Tuttle case in 2008. Others have relied on that statement in deciding to raise hens. http://www.salerD.com/Pages/SaleinMA ZoningAppealsMin/2008Minutes/S0200DBC1 I note that the building commissioner was present at that meeting, so I guess I'm not sure why the homeowner of 69 Orchard Street is being put through the expense and hassle of this appeal in the first place. When I bought my home it came with a blueberry bush and strawberry plants in the backyard. I intend to grow tomatoes this year, as well. Do I need to be concerned that the building commissioner will show up and cite me for engaging in agriculture? That seems to be the slippery slope we're heading down. Respectfully, Geoffrey Millar 20 Abbott St 978-210-7817 t Oear Zc4;rij board tn ra►' t i5 sierrc, GCaWsoh G✓lc I;-.r wr+kel'nc �u, FF � ills' �a V+ C�I'ke S. T 2© I� sh ,f c� a ��e Fo hBwe Gil;` eel S -.For c�s r ✓► i►1�< 1, ISno�a s©me o� fi�iees �i�nQs bec��se L had the GW 50 ��'�eere�ee; �Ceep�� �i e,►vt I® t ►ey are f'ur), pace, erzsl < s �1ey are Ilfte Jody Covh��© f; bey' eff and we h"j ® Amy �,, I� coy 50 i j hope JOU Will COPIE4eCm1, SVve.5hoY-> �f®/►1 �o e�ro� `fib Dea,✓boo-(r? SAN Sale► M �1 I am unable to attend the meeting tonight, however, I would like my voice to be heard concerning this issue. I am a resident of Salem and have previously owned chickens in Salem. My family was elated to have that option and opportunity, while still living in an urban environment. We raised these pets (and I would like to stress these chickens were our PETS) from one week of age. The care and love my children were able to offer them as well as the connection to where their food came from (from the few eggs we received) was such a wonderful and valuable experience. I know some would argue the merit of having chickens as pets. I would like to make the following points to those people: Chickens pose no threat to neighbors. Dog bite and have been known to be dangerous, there is no fear of that with a chicken. • Chickens are contained, in coops and yards (coops usually not much bigger than a dog house or small shed) Chickens are quiet (especially in comparison to the barking dog next door) Chickens are an eco friendly pet, eating bugs and ticks, all the while fertilizing lawns. Chickens are social animals and often bond with their owners. These are just a few points I would like to make. Our family previously lived at 15 Gardner St in Salem, a condo, where the association more than welcomed the chickens into our backyard. We would still have these chickens if we had not moved to another location in Salem, which did not have yard space to bring them. We passed these pets off to another Salem resident who now gets to experience the joy of chicken ownership. Pets bring people happiness and joy, even chickens. I would hate to see this great option to Salem residents be taken away. Thank you for your time! Lindsay Padgett 2 Linden St. Salem, MA 01970 nadgett.lindsayagmail.com Greetings Salem Zoning Board, I'm unable to be with you this evening due to an important airport pickup, but I felt it important to voice my support for the chicken owners of Salem, a camp that we were in until this past summer. We had three bantams who lived a happy life in our backyard at 17-1/2 River Street and are planning to get a new set of chicks this spring. Our chickens were truly pets, not an agricultural endeavor: They were bantams, so few, small eggs on a good day. They stopped laying after a year and a half, and we happily kept them until they dyed of old age. The children helped take care of the chickens, just as they do our other pets. In fact, I see very little difference between a neighbor having chickens and a dog in a dog house. I'm sure others will address other issues, I just wanted to add my support for keeping backyard chickens legal in Salem! Lisa Spence 17-1/2 River Street Salem, MA