Loading...
81 WEBB STREET - ZBA (2) 81 Webb St. R-2 Kathleen Keefe-Ternes (P) Phyllis SPiliotis (0) N6 71 :; Y _ e Trial :o- . =oew e . Su-oarl » :o± 26 Sr-I2 ) . � -rchaels. Felletir et � ma i Kathleen aEeefe-T«nea3a-L= � JUDJEse . Th wcmacame m2�a,�I £�ethe ;mr, s_ i 7 , Aj aoJmG »4 e aces havin.oeee, duly heard and findings ry z :e--n a rendered, it Q Ordered mi &4maya: . . . w That te decision J the Board R Appeals is af«.»G P. That , Jy=i e3atr ate of this :our tea- _:thin i 30 dayssed an attests cAI of t w jvLdFment to tineCity :yml Buildin.- Inspector and Board JAppeals, :emetGel o t da{ w3- . � _ I Attest : n�ssas,-Ian � � � t.:y,&. Dated w , , "Tassachusetts, this ? ± day of «a« , HBe. � � � I \ ° � ` I � I . � unr.r�o OF F;tCcI`¢�D COMMONWEALTH OF MASSA(aWS„,`,TT$LD' ,t-IaSS- THE TRIAL COURT ESSEX, ss . SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT No. 85-1222 * MICHAEL E. PELLETIER, et als * Plaintiffs * VS. * * KATHLEEN J. KEEFE-TERNES, et als Defendants * FINDINGS , RULINGS and ORDER The defendants, Kathleen J. Keefe-Ternes and Lloyd Ternes, applied for and were granted a special permit by the defendant, Board of Appeals of the City of Salem, Massachusetts, to allow them to use the premises at 81 Webb Street, in said Salem, as a combination one unit dwelling and a veterinary clinic for cats . The plaintiffs are property owners in the same zoning district and have brought this action as persons aggrieved pur- suant to the provisions of Mass. G.L. C. 40A, Sec. 17. The hearing before the Court is a de -novo hearing in which the facts are to be determined from the evidence which is introduced by the parties, the governing principles of law applied, and in light of such evidence and law to review the decision of the Board of Appeals, and to enter such decree as justice and equity may - 1 - require in accordance with the determination of law and the facts. Counsel for the parties have submitted agreed stipulated exhibits for the Court' s consideration. Counsel for the parties have further stipulated, that: 1) Defendant, Board of Appeals of the City of Salem, granted a Special Permit to the petitioners, Kathleen Keefe-Ternes and Lloyd Ternes, to allow them to use the premises at 81 Webb Street, Salem, Massachusetts as a one unit dwelling and veterinary clinic for cats, upon certain conditions by an undated decision filed with the Salem City Clerk on April 30 , 1985 . 2) The land and structure located at 81 Webb Street, Salem, is located within an R-2 District as defined under the Salem Zoning Ordinance. 3) Plaintiffs ' Complaint was filed in accordance with Massachusetts G. L. Chapter 40A, sec. 17. The Court took a view of the locus. A jury waived trial was held on April 15, 1986. Based on all credible and material evidence and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, I make the following Findings of Fact, Rulings of Law and Order for Judgment. FINDINGS OF FACT: The Court finds that the plaintiffs are property owners in close proximity and in the same zoning district as the property which is the subject of this action. The Court accordingly finds that the plaintiffs are "persons aggrieved" under Mass. G.L. C. 40A, Section 17. - 2 - The pertinent sections of the Salem Zoning Ordinance are the following: Section V, B. 10 of the "Use Regulations" provides : 1110 . Extension of Nonconformity" . "Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance, the Board of Appeals may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions set forth in Section VIII F and IX D, grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction of nonconforming structures, and for changes , enlargement, extension or expansion of non- conforming lots, land, structures, and uses, provided, however, such change, extension, enlargement, or expan- sion shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood. . " Section IX, D of the Ordinance provides: "D, Special Permits" . . . The Board of Appeals shall not have the power to grant any special permit where use of land or structure is specifically excluded from the district" . Section V, A, 2 recites the permitted uses in an R-2 District and does not specifically include the type of facility and use proposed by the petitioners, Kathleen J. Keefe-Ternes and Lloyd. Section V, B, 7 lists the special permit uses allowed in an R-2 district and does not include the type of facility and use proposed by the petitioners, Kathleen J. Keefe- Ternes and Lloyd Ternes. Section V, B, 7 does on to specifically exclude in an R-2 district the following: Section V, B, 7 " (d) Any Special Permit uses for B-1, B-2, B-3, B-4 and I Disticts" . Section V, B, 7 of the ordinance lists "Veterinary Hospitals" as a special permit use in a B-4 District. Section II, B, 43 of the "DEFINITIONS" section of the ordinance provides: "43 . Veterinary Hospital, (Animal Clinic) - a building whose sole use will be the medical or surgical treatment of animals, reptiles or birds . Patients may be boarded on the premises not longer than twenty (20) days. The building shall not be used for breeding purposes or as a kennel. 3 - p,(;s;ItiF ApF GALS Plaintiffs argue that the facility proposed RbyG.t]ie0 CiTy Or vt.`-m olzS. petitioners, Kathleen Keefe-Ternes and Lloyd Ternes is a veterinary Hospital (Animal Clinic) as defined in the Ordinance and may be the subject of a special permit only in a B-4 district andis specifically excluded by the Ordinance in a R-2 district. The Board of Appeals, among its findingsmade a finding as follows: "3 . The proposed use is not a veterinary hospital as defined in the Ordinance, because the subject building will not be used solely for the medical or surgical treatment of animals, reptiles or birds. It will also be used as a dwelling as proposed by the petitioners. " (emphasis added) This Court makes the following findings: The petitioner, Dr. Kathleen Keefe-Ternes is a licensed veterinarian in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts . She limits her practice to the medical and surgical treatment of cats . She intends to use the first floor of the building at 81 Webb Street [which she and her husband, Lloyd Ternes, have under contract to purchase] for reception and examination purposes. The second floor of the building would be used for surgery, over- night patient care and an office. The third floor would be rented out as a residence apartment. She and her husband do not intend to reside upon the property 1/ . The Board of Appeals also found that the proposed use will not significantly increase traffic congestion or parking problems beyond that caused by its present use as a dwelling/ beauty salon nor would the proposed use result in significant increase in noise beyond its present use. - 4 - She will have one assistant at the present time and at a later date would expand her staff to two. She has designed the facility' s parking lot to minimize parking and traffic problems as required by the Board of Appeals and will have parking for six cars as required by the Board of Appeals. She has made provision for additional overflow parking at a rented parking lot close by if this becomes necessary. She would expect to see three patients per hour during the hours permitted by the Board of Appeals 2/ or about 90 per week. She would not expect to have more than 5 or 6 cats at any one time for overnight post-operative stays. I further find that the R-2 district in which the property is located is comprised of residences (single and multifamily homes) with commercial and professional uses within the district. That Webb Street, within the R-2 district in which the property is located, includes a mixture of residential and commercial uses, including a roofing company garage, a donut shop, a machine shop, a donut shop, a barber shop and a fish market. That Webb Street, at the intersection of Andrew, where the property is located, has a traffic density of 3000 vehicles per day, including heavy trucks. That the veterinary clinic for cats will add a maximum of 24 vehicles per day to Webb Street traffic and none to Andrew Street beyond the entrance to the property's parking lot. 2/ Tne Board of Appeals in its decision provided that the clinic may be open to the public or customer within the following hours . a) 8: 45 a.m. to 5: 30 p.m. on three weekdays per week b) 8: 45 a.m. to 7 : 00 p.m. on two weekdays per week. c) 8 : 45 a.m. to 12: 00 noon on Saturdays . - c - SEP 25 38 '� 'o� i Y OF SHLLM, HJ S. I further find that the use of the propertj� as a veterinary clinic for cats will not generate offensive noises or smells outside of the building which is part of the property. That the prior non-conforming use (beauty salon) had an estimated customer count of 75-80 customers per week seen both by the defendant, the present owner of the property, Phyllis E. Spiliotis, and her helper. The Board of Appeals on the basis of the findings of fact made by them concluded and this Court also so finds and concludes that: 1. The proposed use will not be substantially more determinental to the public good than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood. 2. The proposed use will not nullify . nor will it sub- stantially derogate from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance. 3 . The proposed use does not or will not constitute an unreasonable increase in the degree of use of the premises over its current use. With respect to the finding by the Board of Appeals that the use proposed by the petitioners is not a veterinary hospital as defined in the Ordinance because its use is not solely that of a veterinary hospital in that it will also be used as a dwelling, the Court finds that distinction and finding to be tenuous to say the least. To sanction such an interpretion would be a precedent and would allow petitioners for a veterinary hospital in R-2 districts to merely provide a residential use or other use within the facility and thus subvert the intent and express exclusion of veterinary hospitals (by special permit or 6 - otherwise) in a R-2 District. Thus Court, however, finds that the facility proposed by the plaintiffs, Kathleen J. Keefe-Ternes and Lloyd Ternes is not a Veterinary Hospital, (Animal Clinic) as defined in Section II, B, 43 of the Ordinance. This Court finds that a Veterinary Hospital, (Animal Clinic) as defined by the Ordinance would encompass a full service Veterinary Hospital, used for the medical or surgical treatment of a variety of animals ranging from aardvarks to zebras. Such a full service veterinary hospital, with its attendant sounds, smells, waste generation and traffic may rightfully be limited to a B-4 district. The Court does not find that the framers of the ordinance intended that such a limited facility and operation as that proposed by the plaintiffs should be classified as a Veterinary Hospital and thus specifically excluded by special permit or otherwise from this R-2 zone. The Court therefore arrives at the same result as the Board of Appeals, although on differenT grounds ; that the plaintiffs, Kathleen J. Keefe-T ernes and Lloyd Ternes be permitted to use the premises at 81 Webb Street, Salem, Massachusetts as a combination one unit dwelling and a veterinary clinic for cats, subject to all of the conditions required by the Board of Appeals. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW: On appeal to the Superior Court, the judge is required to hear the matter de novo and determine the legal validity of the decision of the Board upon the facts found by him. Lawrence vs . Board of Appeals of Lynn, 336 Mass. 87 , 89 and cases cited. - 7 - In such a hearing before the Court, the matter is heard de novo and the judge makes his own finding of fact, independent of any findings of the board, and determines the legal validity of the decision of the board upon the facts found by the court, or if the decision of the board is invalid in whole or in part, the court determines what decision the law requires upon the facts found. Pendergast vs. Board of Appeals of Barnstable, 331 Mass . 555 , 559, (emphasis in original) . The function of the Court is confined to the usual and proper function of applying established law to established facts. It does not permit the Court to invade the field of administrative discretion. Pendergast, supra at 559 The Board of Appeals properly concluded based on its findings of fact that: 1. The proposed use will not be substantially more detrimental to the public good than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood. 2. The proposed use will not nullify nor will it substantially derogate from the intend and purpose of the Ordinance. 3 . The proposed use does not or will not constitute an unreasonable increase in the degree of use of the premises over its current use. That both the former beauty salon and the proposed cat clinic are non-conforming uses in an R-2 district. That the proposed use as found by this Court is not specifically excluded from an R-2 district. That the proposed use will not depart from the intent of the Ordinance and its prior degree of use nor will the building be increased in volume or area unreasonably. - 8 - It is therefore ORDERED: 1. That the decision of the Board of Appeal is affirmed. 2. That a copy of this Order be forwarded to the City Clerk of the City of Salem, its Building Inspector, and its Board of Appeal. By the Court, / SentEemher 25, i012b , ' ,. dated William a Jr. Justice SERAFINI, SERAFINI AND DARLING ATTORNEYS AT LAW 63 FEDERAL STREET SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS 01970 - - - JOHNR. SERAFINI, SR. TELEPHONE JOHN R. SERAFINI.JR. 744.0212 JOHN E. DARLING - _66_1$_74_3---- AREA.CODE 617 _ June 3, 1988 Lloyd Ternes 16 Pickman Street Salem, MA 01970 Re: Pelletier v. Keefe-Ternes• j Essex Superior Court Docket No. 85-1222 - = Dear Lloyd: As you had recently asked me , the effective date of Judgement in the Superior Court in Essex County upon rescript from the Appeals Court is May 9, 1988. The two (2) year period <:. during which you must make use of your Special Permit will. run from that date. _., Enclosed is the rescript order from the Appeals Court to the Essex Superior Court showing a date stamp on the back of the first page of May 9 , 1988 . If you have any other questions, please call me. j Very truly yours, I J N R. SERAFINI, JR. JRS,JR/mkt Enclosures I, i I COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS. AFFEAL6 COURT FOR THE COMMONWEALTH, �\ - April 6. ��- 19 88 AT BOSTON, p IN THE CASE OF MICHAEL • PELLETIER & others va. KATHLEEN J. KEEFE-TERNES & others. Superior pending in the Essex Court for the County Of ORDERED, that the following entry be made in the docket; viz.,— Judgment affirmed. BY TEE COURT, i April 6 , 1988. OVER No 87-706 APPEALS COURT v FOR THE COMMONWEALTH a _ Rescriptr Essex County. MICHAEL E. PELLETIER 6 others vs. KATHLEEN J. KEEFE—TERNES & others. —� �r C II r, . I f /r ff• BRIEF STATEMENT. OF THE GROUNDS AND REASONS OF THE DECISION: See order of summary disposition (Rule 1: 28) on file. I I COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS. APPEALS COURT FOR THE COMMONWEALTH, AT BoaroN, April 6 , 19 88 IN THE CASE OF MICHAEL E. PELLETIER & others VS. KATHLEEN J. KEEFE-TERNES & others. Superior pending in the Essex Court for the County of ORDERED, that the following entry be made in the docket; viz.,— Judgment affirmed. BY THE CouRT, 1 CLERK. April 6 , 1988 . OVER {.FF"'_ COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS APPEALS COURT No. X187-706 MICHAEL E. PELLETIER & others y VS. KATHLEEN J. KEEFE-TERNES & others . v MEMORANDUM & ORDER UNDER RULE 1 : 28 The structure in question is a three-story building situated in a district zoned for two-family residential use. The building had been used as a beauty salon, located on the first level, and as residential quarters on the remaining two levels. The defendants plan to maintain a veterinary clinic on the first two levels and to rent the third floor apartment for residential purposes. Their plan constitutes an alteration in the pre-existing non-conforming use. A veterinary clinic, however , is not a permitted use in the defendants ' district . As set out in the zoning ordinance, the forbidden use is defined as follows: "Veterinary Hospital (Animal Clinic) -- a building whose sole use will be the medical or surgical treatment of animals, reptiles, or birds . Patients may be boarded on the premises not longer than Anne Pelletier , John J. Suldenski , and Edmond 0. Sicotte . V Lloyd G. Ternes, Phyllis E. Spiliotis, and the Board of Appeal of Salem (the board) . twenty ( 20) days. The building shall not be used for breeding purposes or as a kennel . " The board allowed the permit, subject to conditions (A. 46) , on the grounds that the proposed use "is not a veterinary hospital as defined in the ordinance . . . [ in that ) it will also be used as a dwelling" (A. 45) . On appeal, the judge affirmed the board. However, he did so on a different basis. He concluded that the board' s interpretation of the definition of Veterinary Hospital was "tenuous to say the least" because a permit applicant could "subvert the intent and express exclusion" of the zoning ordinance by simply providing for a residential use within the structure also housing the clinic (A. 14) . He then went on to read the exclusion as applicable only to a "full service veterinary hospital , " that is, one which provides a range of services to all animals from "aardvarks to zebras" (A. 15 ) . Having concluded that the intended use was not a veterinary hospital precluded by the zoning ordinance, the judge found that : (1) the proposed use will not be substantially more detrimental to the public good than the existing nonconforming use; ( 2) the proposed use will not nullify nor substantially derogate from the intent and purpose of the ordinance; and ( 3) the proposed use will not constitute an unreasonable increase in the degree of use of the premises "over its current use, " -2- L � e.g . , beauty salon (A. 14 ) . We affirm the judgment but for a different reason. We must "construe [a] statute to effectuate the objectives of its framers. [A court) is not free, however, to excise disputed language from its statutory context and interpret it according to those perceived objectives. " James J. Welch & Co. v. Deputy Commr , of Div. of Capitol Planning & Operations, 387 Mass . 662, 666 (1982) . We think that, by the clear and plain language of the ordinance, a clinic dedicated to the treatment of cats to the exclusion of all other animals is nonetheless a veterinary hospital or animal clinic. It makes no difference whether the judge's characterization of the facility is viewed as a finding of fact or a conclusion of law. In either event, it is erroneous. See Fitchburg Housing Authy. v. Board of Zoning Appeals of Fitchburg , 380 Mass. 869 , 873 (1980) ; Tamerlane Realty Trust v. Board of Appeals of Provincetown, 23 Mass . App. Ct . 450 , 454 ( 1987 ) . Returning to the definition of veterinary hospital as set out in the ordinance, we are mindful of the basic rule of statutory construction that "no word in a statute should be considered superfluous. " International Org . of Masters, Mates & Pilots, Atlantic & Gulf Maritime Region, AFL-CIO v. Woods Hole, Martha's vineyard & Nantucket S.S. Authy. , 392 Mass . 811, 813 ( 1984 ) . The judge found that the "third floor would be rented out as a residence -3- I apartment" (A. 12) . It follows from this finding that the "sole use" of the building will not be for the "treatment of animals, reptiles, or birds" and that, therefore, it is not a veterinary hospital as defined by the clear and plain language of the zoning ordinance. As the judge's decision is correct. in all other respects, we see no error requiring a reversal of the judgment . Judgment affirmed. By the Court (Greaney, C.J . , Perretta & Fine, JJ. ) , Clerk Q Entered: April 6, 1988 . -4- ofttlem, Cttsstttl#use##s s, w3X �FRECEIVED Poxrb of CAPPeal 15 APR 30 P 3 :04 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF KATHLEEN KEEFE-TERNES AND LLOYD TERNES (PETITIONERS) , PHYLLIS SPILIOTIS (OW[T)y CLERK'S OFFICE FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 81 WEBB ST. , SALEM SALEM MASS A hearing on this petition was held April 24, 1985 with the following Board Members present: James Hacker, Chairman; Messrs. , Charnas, Gauthier, Luzinski and Strout. Notice of_the hearing was sent to abutters and others and notices of the hearing were properly published in the Salem Evening News in accordance with Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 40A. Petitioners request a Special Permit to allow them to use the premises as a combination one unit dwelling and veterinary clinic for cats. The premises, in an R-2 district, is owned by Phyllis E. Spiliotis and is currently used as a dwelling/beauty salon. The provision of the Salem Zoning Ordinance which is applicable to this request for a Special Permit is Section V B 11 , which provides as follows: Notwithstanding anything to the contrary appearing in this Ordinance, the Board of Appeal may, in accordance with the procedure and conditions set forth in Section VIII F and IX D, grant Special Permits for alterations and reconstruction of nonconforming structures, and for changes, enlargement, extension or expansion of nonconforming lots, land, structures, and uses, provided, however, that such change, extension, enlargement or expansion shall not be substantially more detrimental than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood. In more general terms, this Board is, when reviewing Special Permit requests, guided by the rule that a Special Permit request may be granted upon a finding by the Board that the grant of the Special Permit will promote the public health, safety,convenience and welfare of the City's inhabitants. The Board of Appeal, after hearing the evidence presented at the hearing and after viewing the plans, makes the following findings of fact: 1 . The proposed use of the premises will not significantly increase traffic congestion or parking problems in the neighborhood beyond that caused by its present use as a dwelling/beauty salon; 2. The proposed use of the the premises will not result in any significant increase in noise in the neighborhood beyond that caused by its present use as a dwelling/beauty salon; 3. The proposed use is not a veterinary hospital as defined in the Ordinance, because the subject building will not be used soley for the medical or surgical treatment of animals, reptiles or birds. It will also be used as a dwelling as proposed by petitioners. 3 DECISION ON THE PETITION OF KATHLEEN KEEFE TERNES & LLOYD TERNES FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR 81 WEBB ST. , SALEM page two On the basis of the above findings of fact, and on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Board of Appeal concludes as follows: 1 . The proposed use will not be substantially more detrimental to i the public good than the existing nonconforming use to the neighborhood; i 2. The proposed use will not nullify nor will it substantially derogate from the intent and purpose of the Ordinance; 3. The proposed use does not or will not constitute an unreasonable increase in the degree of use of the premises over its current use. Therefore, the Zoning Board of Appeal voted 4 - 1 (Mr. Luzinski voted against) to grant the relief requested, provided that: 1 . The veterinary clinc may be open to the public or customers of the clinic withing the following hours only (except for medical emergencies) : a. 8:45 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. on three weedays per week; b. 8:45 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on two weekdays per week; C. 8:45 a.m. to 12:00 noon on Saturdays; 2. A minimum of six (6) on site parking spaces be maintained at all times; 3. Driveway in rear be crushed stone; 4. Maximum of one veterinary and three employees be on premises at one time; 5. Landscaping be done in accordance with plan submitted to the Board; 6. Any signs advertising the business be affixed to the building itself and be no more than 18" x 32" and unlit; 7• Smoke detectors be installed in a configuration appropriate for mixed occupancy and plans for installation be provided to the Salem Fire Prevention Bureau prior to start of work; 8. Basement to be used for storage only; 9. Certificate of Occupancy be obtained. cn- a T rn SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED 3: CD Scott E. Charnas, Secretar , p L+�4'ECI�FDNTffIN4YDWTrF 4©FfAW IDUFP M9SDE5AVE-'IBEEN (FILEDWITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND CTH 'OFFICES OFTHECITY CLBE FILED IERKN 20 DAYS AFTER 7HE D;;TE LAWS, CHAPTER 808, SECTION 11, THE VAPIANCE ;�E EFFECT UNTIL-A COPY OF THE DECMI":!, i. ,:LEfi I•. i:...: 20 DAYS HAVE EL'-'SED AND NO APPEAL OR :.P.-- . .`;.2L HA-` FILE, THAT IT HAS BEEN DIS'."SSED CR O_';:::D 1:; RECORDED iii _.J:iS REGISTR: OF DEEDS AND INDEXED UNDER THE Nk'veE OF iii`_ OF RECORD OR IS ;:ND NOTED ON THF OWNER'S CERTIFICATE OF TITLE. BOARD OF APPEAL 01970 7459888 J� N��oP �ja6(as ,,FiTHEAST ANIMAL SHELTER,204 HSlt� L' �2• arm' HAAekfrz vnAlR�1AN & igfzd of eg1s r Stac�sr Grt�N McA • 61 4'70 BAR, +I\gcbrfa ,_r pM w2r4-+ni mm 1-0 a2 . hm"Iten 'Ttn,ues AS H acm6nSn41e m3li-rte, �e JRlem (o(YaMUn� l�/, hAre hid () QP?d FtJlronAl h,10 wr 41 �)R• --rraAeS eft Scc,c2a1 VfAaS . �,111e IS .-�ha} 4Z H R(' lt�}ecz�,u A 2 r r+nr tuh� iu vu Cimti. 4 A e Pld QF Aa AwleAd vN medl 4k ln(tnuen(ty; e art miem CAUSe hee 4 !fie (rZraen45 be- _ i; Codd 6vLy peue�rt 4Y R Lc,csal ClrNrc ,1'h� wc»ld� cQeicr+fe , `�e� YuAGt'7 ITL 90AP4 CA ftr o�lB 6f 4q@Atthol.e ey 0 ()ft6t SronRl, Z m fi NISa pfd -Ap+ P hwp,4-Al AftlY C'S}A_eMd`� �e Ccprt waj� ()f A �ulc� Av1C0 dr�►� hei)hboq I& Avuy NtA3k409 404 - �eaSe C�,II upo�1 mE r� �Mr rwR�tneR n.��aa�►,tie Sha1eR �rRe�daR /a BOARD OF AFPEALS r> 31 FM 185 RECEIVED CITY OF SaLEM h1ASS. March 27, 1985 Mr. James Hacker, Chairman Board of Appeals One Salem Green Salem, MA 01970 Dear Mr. Hacker: It has been brought to my attention that my previous letter to the Board of Appeals in support of the petition by Dr. Kathleen 'Ternes to open a feline clinic on Webb Street in Salem could be construed as indicating support from the Peabody Museum of Salem. I feel that it should be under- stood that I in no way meant to imply that I was representing the entire Museum membership of 4 ,000 or Staff of almost 55 individuals in my letter of support. My letter was written on Museum letter- head as an indication that I am a professional within the community and, as I indicated in my letter, others here at the Museum who happen to know Dr. Ternes join my in supporting her petition. I hope this clears up any misunderstand- ing that might arise as a result of my previous letter. LZS erely, Cer,! Donna Copeland 328 Essex Street Salem, MA 01970 745-4577 SALE 1l Peabody Museum Founded by the Eajt India Marine Society 1799 y, n East India Square Q x _Y To , Board of APPeal-_�, tits of Salem Fr= Michael E. Pelletier GjG%( (��4p, 25 Andrew Street Subject, Petition of Kathleen and Llowd Ternes regarding ProPosed Cat Clinic at 81 Webb St. Date : APril 24o 1985 I would like to react to the Petitionersclaim that "the Prior use of the building. . . is similar in intensits to the ProPosed 1 . The existing use is a widow living in a large sin9le-familq, Victorian, house who uses one room of her home to fix the hair of some elderls women. Most of these elderls women live nearbv and either walk to 81 Webb Street or are draPPed off and Picked uP bm husbands or friends. The customers are old, few and sPaced throughout the dams of the week . There is no exterior sign advertising the hair care within. It is, in fact; a verg sub❑dued oPeration within the nei9hborhood--1.!nno1:•iced and unremarked uwn on most residents. 2. The ProPosed use would site a veternarm clinic for cats on the entire first two floors, leaving onlq a small living unit on the third floor. As one of the few--if not the ouls--veternarm I linics sPecializinG in cats existing on the North Shore, this ProPosed clinic can be exPected to draw customers from throughout the surrounding area. Because the lot at 81 Webb Street is undersized, most of it must be devoted to Parking to serve the needs of clients and staff ( one veternarian and two assistants ). The exit from the lot will be onto alreadq heavilg-traveled Webb Street, exacerbating the traffic Problems on that street; from Webb Street most customers will turn uP Andrew Street which is strictlg residential in nature. 2. The contrast between the Present situation--one room, one Person Providing a Part-time service in her home--and t&- ProPosal--two thirds of the building and three staff 1.1Peratin9 a large veternarm clinic for cats servipq the entire North Shore--could not be more stark . Anv claim that "the Prior ,use of hhe building. . . is similar inlintensito to the ProPosed use" flies in the face of reason. S THE �� HOSPITAL 110BOA 'tl { "r pEa aLS KATHLEEN KEEFE TERNES, D.V.M. HOURS BY APPOINTINENT (p $lila 1U•1 (617)7448020 - RPR RE6EIVE11 CITY OF St:LEtA,,MASS• �l .IS riw �G2c,c � .a-u-t- Gc%tG<lr— ,,�z-tet "' Practice Devoted to the Care of Cats PETITION We, the undersigned, hereby wish to express our support for the application of Kathleen and Lloyd Ternes to utilize the property at 81 Webb Street, Salm, Massachusetts, as a clinic for the treatment of cats, and use of the upstairs as a dwelling unit. Name ( Address 01c id , ✓W A/f Q v ' Lot L 7 6 Ult b b Acr Jam 7F 41-t'a A ��e�✓ — PETITION - I We, the undersigned, hereby wish to express our support for the .j application of Kathleen and Lloyd Ternes to utilize the property at 81 Webb Street, Salam, Massachusetts, as a clinic for the treatment of cats, and use of the upstairs as a dwelling unit. Name Address do ,71 f tom- L O roL COUAIS Ilk fF'j "Vie bb ST' 7ysZ-.o3iz y �� � 11 PETITION I We, the undersigned, hereby wish to express our support for the application of Kathleen and Lloyd Ternes to utilize the property at 81 Webb Street, Salem, Massachusetts, as a clinic for the treatment of cats, and use of the upstairs as a dwelling unit. Name Address MvY� 33I 5� . q o LJ e b S4% ( FISIV MA414'1 W �� s ,ar y . PETITION We, the undersigned, hereby wish to express our support for the application of Kathleen and Lloyd Ternes to utilize the property at 81 Webb Street, Salem, Massachusetts, as a clinic for the treatment of eats, and use of the upstairs as a dwelling unit. Name Address _a/G b� 3 3z 4v s Ilk .11 1 IAI -- 61 A JY „�: S1 / r— PETITION ` g We, the undersigned, hereby wish to express our support for the application of Kathleen and Lloyd Ternes to utilize the property at 81 Webb Street, Salem, Massachusetts, as a clinic for the treatment of cats, and use of the upstairs as a .dwelling unit. Name Address l r April 24, 1985 ).1 r PI e Anthony S . Fucaloro CI M One Warner Street Salem, MA. 01970 Board of Appeals City of Salem One Salem Green Salem, MA. 01970 Gentlemen: I would like to express my personal. approval of Ms. Kathy Ternes ' request for a special permit to operate a cat clinic at 81 Webb Street in Salem. Kathy has been my neighbor and friend for the past 4 years, which I. feel qualifies me to speak on her behalf. I have had the opportunity to discuss her proposal with her on many occasions and have come to the conclusion that Kathy' s commitment to run and operate a clean and well groomed establishment is of the utmost integrity. Currently, several of my colleagues, who have cats, have selected Kathy as their veterinarian. I have heard nothing but positive feedback. By granting your approval of Kathy' s proposal, not only will you be allowing the dwelling at 81 Webb Street to be aesthetically improved, you will also be allowing a piece of the. neighborhood to remain in the ownership of someone whose permanent residence is only a few doors away, insuring that her commitment is not only sincere, but long lasting. Sincerely, Anthony S. Fucaloro -To l ilas - S)+ M Ck� CLIY . r Jxi'SOed]wtlµ.wn�dx O r (� xw K f Y�azO) ���ESS .PyyFs,d tx� � .farmers/ Am,* LsAr� iG77o3 �� ���aSdRf Sj L:�.�c �ifg riC� Zu3 LCA/ z�frt 17) e,e�st �7'�a s� of th03E �F i.wrE3 octet -g�-/ze.2f 7k fAa HAel�, g6m8 LASS �ot�E -4nat�� �,.wf► Cit#g oftt1em, # sttchue## Aire Department �Heabquartera . ROBERT J. CROWLEY 48 1afq£tt£ *tre£t wch of $alem, 4u. 01970 Date: April 24, 1985 City of Salem Re: 81 Webb Street Board of Appeal Kathleen Keefe-Terhes One Salem Green Salem, MA 01970 Sirs: As a result of the notice received concerning the Board of Appeal hearing for the above listed name and address, the Salem Fire Department requests the following items to be placed on record: The Salem Fire Department has no objection to the granting of a Variance and/or Special Permit to allow premises to be used as a Veterinary Clinic. Should a Special Permit and/or Variance be granted, the owner shall be required to install smoke detectors in a configuration appropriate for mixed occupancy. Plans for such installation shall be provided to the Salem Fire Prevention Bureau prior to the start of work. `espectfully, P/4 Norman P. LaPointe Fire Inspector cc: Appellant Building Inspector File Form #105 WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, WISH TO REGISTER STRONG OPPOSITION TO THE PETITION BEFORE THE BOARD OF APPEALS, CITY OF SALEM, CONCERNING THE PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY AT 81 WEBB STREET FOR USE AS A ONE-UNIT DWELLING/VETERINARY CLINIO- FOR CATS. WE BELIEVE THAT SUCH USE OF 81 WEBB STREET, LOCATED IN AN R-2 DISTRICT, WILL DEROGATE FROM THE INTENT OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND WILL BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC GOOD BECAUSE OF THE RESIDENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE PROPOSED USE, WHICH IS SIGNIFICANTLY MORE INTENSE THAN THE PRIOR USE OF THE BUILDING. NAME ADDRESS DATE G. 17 Old --A S rs 8� t SI y/r e. Cede. (J � 5 C >,jXL zut-et'a ' y �s t, 1 17 Andrew Street Salem, Massachusetts March 30, 1985 The Honorable Anthony Salvo City Hall Salem, Massachusetts Dear Sirs This letter is written to inform you of our concern over recent and future actions by the Board of Appeals of the City of Salem. During the past three years the R-2 zoning district, as it presently exists in the Andrew Street/ Webb Street neighborhood has been very loosely interpreted and enforced in decisions made by the Board. This is evident in decisions made concerning9 Andrew Street, 35 Andrew Street, 78 Webb Street, and 80-82 Webb Street, which have increased density in this area greatly. 0n April 24, 1985 the Board of Appeals will consider a petition to change the use of the building at 81 Webb Street from a one-unit dwelling/beauty salon to a one-unit dwelling/veterinary clinic for cats. If approved this variance and or special permit application would allow a use specifically excluded in an R-2 District, according to the zoning ordinance of the City of Salem. A veterinary clinic is allowed, by special permit only, in a B-4 District. The existing salon has operated as a neighborhood business for a number of years, but relies primarily on foot traffic and limited vehicular traffic. This type of business is allowed by special permit in an R-2 District. The City of Salem has an established business district and several business corridors which provide ample opportunity for locating new businesses. We feel very strongly that variances for business development in residential areas 2 should be curtailed and such development should be encouraged in appropriate non—residential areas. Thank you very much for the concern and interest that you have shown in many of our neighborhood issues. Very truly yours, rca� WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, WISH TO REGISTER STRONG OPPOSITION TO THE PETITION BEFORE THE BOARD OF APPEALS, CITY OF SALEM, CONCERNING THE PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY AT 81 WEBB STREET FOR USE AS A ONE—UNIT DWELLING/VETERINARY CLINIC- FOR CATS. WE BELIEVE THAT SUCH USE OF 81 WEBB STREET, LOCATED IN AN R-2 DISTRICT, WILL DERORATE FROM THE INTENT OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND WILL BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC GOOD BECAUSE OF THE RESIDENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE PROPOSED USE, WHICH IS SIGNIFICANTLY MORE INTENSE THAN THE PRIOR USE OF THE BUILDING. NAME ADDRESS DATE v s �1r�rc ur S3 8� s� i J . eA j4 i A AA, 1 04Z L 77j-�a YL S / 5 c y / '1 7 Y WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, WISH TO REGISTER STRONG OPPOSITION TO THE PETITION BEFORE THE BOARD OF APPEALS, CITY OF SALEM, CONCERNING THE PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY AT 81 WEBB STREET FOR USE AS A ONE+UNIT DWELLING/VETERINARY CLINIC FOR CATS. WE BELIEVE THAT SUCH USE OF 81 WEBB STREET, LOCATED IN AN R-2 DISTRICT, WILL DEROGATE FROM THE INTENT OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND WILL BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC GOOD BECAUSE OF THE RESIDENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE PROPOSED USE, WHICH IS SIGNIFICANTLY MORE INTENSE THAN THE PRIOR USE OF THE BUILDING. NAME ADDRESS DATE Zf Y It 2 f ,JwrPr� ' 1 /�.e '� • �1'�t*.so+ 33 B/liygs Sj'. y�a 3,85 33 17 Andrew Street Salem, Massachusetts March 30, 1985 The Honorable Anthony Salvo City Hall Salem, Massachusetts Dear Sirs This letter is written to inform you of our concern over recent and future actions by the Board of Appeals of the City of Salem. During the past three years the R-2 zoning district, as it presently exists in the Andrew Street/ Webb Street neighborhood has been very loosely interpreted and enforced in decisions made by the Board. 4 This is evident in decisions made concerning Andrew Street, 35 Andrew Street, 78 Webb Street, and 80-82 Webb Street, which have increased density in this area greatly. On April 24, 1985 the Board of Appeals will consider a petition to change the use of the building at 81 Webb Street from a one-unit dwelling/beauty salon to a one-unit dwelling/veterinary clinic for cats. If approved this variance and or special permit application would allow a use specifically excluded in an R-2 District, according to the zoning ordinance of the City of Salem. A veterinary clinic is allowed, by special permit only, in a B-4 District. The existing salon has operated as a neighborhood business for a number of years, but relies primarily on foot traffic and limited vehicular traffic. This type of business is allowed by special permit in an R-2 District. The City of Salem has an established business district and several business corridors which provide ample opportunity for locating new businesses. We feel very strongly that variances for business development in residential areas should be curtailed and such development should be encouraged in appropriate non—residential areas. Thank you ,very much for the concern and interest that you have shown in many of our neighborhood issues. Very truly yours, i 9 nil- WE, THE UNDERSIG111ED, WISH TO REGISTER STRONG OPPOSITION TO THE PETITION BEFORE THE BOARD OF APPEALS, CITY OF SALEM, CONCERNING THE PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY AT 81 WEBB STREET FOR USE AS A ONE-UNIT DWELLING/VETERINARY CLINIC. FOR CATS. WE BELIEVE THAT SUCH USE OF 81 WEBB STREET, LOCATED IN AN R-2 DISTRICT, WILL DERC41ATE FROM THE INTENT OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND WILL BE CONTRARY TO THE PUBLIC GOOD BECAUSE OF THE RESIDENTIAL CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE PROPOSED USE, WHICH IS SIGNIFICANTLY MORE INTENSE THAN THE PRIOR USE OF THE BUILDING. . NAME ADDRESS DATE i7 Anew -Lt 7d D 7 S s ��vrEw S ,3 of Wa rA 0. Iff- v S- / 1 4.zar S i F : •e kap INi, � �'vt ilmlwo s J: w"y ° ��r�F s„r.��aro^� � ��°�r mak," "h�''.,t�' •v'� R �' f f R a 4i7 aC-��� ���"�`t' �, � r b �t" v�# w_# •i"�:�2 S�\ f ,y 4���'��s W,., zr $�+. �-�, ., �� �r;r��� -a rK.t �'"�� x.° •. .Nr.�z�n�rE ern... '�rw .y'�#�f� i�ir 5r:"' Y��y-�fi�1,y�• �..' «� �,t�'�Y"} ��2. � iA t f �\ s.y ��C��� � � � �f' �°r �:x +� `��igl��tyx Yix wp'. �' .� X''.*� �g,� �;tf`vt�'"frP�' '�' n�.Xt..�s�a�'• i� y, y,�' ��s .. . `�t 1 y��"`,p?.��.s } - ����y, ��4�s � "x„�'w n `9,�/sfei• '•^' '• " ; �b WiA- 3'r' tf�kz�t+h r � '�'.�',P`g'a." ''�� -�A Y "`.�•� s Y. a taZ� b i �a .Ati ry 7,aH w+w e,-"i"`�a��t. y� rr""� o!.`a�3� � . •y� °s-5� f v.; p�' a ",'ryy�va{„ �"x 4� � � �fr� �. , � % } R t`AOc IN � �� "�"tti a�Y'SR' .t+`,�'y}tk „P"� ,d ` � } � d�.WYi r � f� d�'S.4t1�,�O �L.ei� \�'-1• 1��Y+ yyyy Mgr �'� t , dr' .• YeP gg� ��� Y�' r`Ur���%�F',F'�J„'� �'r �f v .,se rY£�- a , �~�� i « 'vt �• Yom: � S>lh� I ; 41'9 Al I 1 1 J dS L: i'4"" .,°�•2 ar' +i7 'v pxe" fi. 'r 3 r t t �''�*`v. ",•�"�'� %9' .� *„, y` if ry s, !ppp KATHLEEN J . KEEFE-TERNES, D.V.M. i i }dr k « a +a f I � } x J X' • • • I C & LLOYD G. • l ' ' 16 PICKMAN STREET SALEM, MASS. 01970 -� BRIGGS ST. X35 H. X33 A -*29-31 3 W n a x x r V D. DRISCOLL a V & N. MARCUS T M x-- m m X k �5 00 �'� 0 C m co ui m ff^^ v X V) I x �� c7 x m C cn �_0 o -4 — D. D o U) k 0 C7 w x N o w � t` C rrn °' 9: o [A I N 030 VV --S2.6 X35 C � O r 2 z THE FELINE HOSPITAL KATHLEEN J. KEEFE—TERNES, D.V.M. 81 WEBB STREET & LLOYD G. TERNES SALEM, MASS. 01970 16 PICKMAN STREET SALEM, MASS. 01970 . . 'r DTII. t N i 1 4L iu els lfili I LAND oP ALLEN L JANE H. DRA'1NN' 0WICZ WEBB ST. SALEM,,MASS. SCALE I IN,�20FT, JUNE 1955 E I pE ED 9 E YO� ti R, .Mi;f. ti it J' ANDpews S 7; s -00 I IDc LOT A b 1� 3780 S, F. q v S oq ! 8 W Awo,psK� , '� 1 Nil. 1J�l ECn�tp. I ' iia 6 . �� r .Iter"i.: ' • sl , I � THE FELINE HOSPITAL KATHLEEN J. KEEFE-TERNES, D.V.M. 81 WEBB STREET & LLOYD G. TERNES SALEM, MASS. 01970 16 PICKMAN STREET SALEM, MASS. 01970 � •" `�\� ` /�(\����^ter�' '�. � -�'�- �'� N�. vv/ 4,j s r, µ d tl s f r S m' CD 7"r� � �• � - U) F- - - - --rT- — m m I . 4 q O C^ Yrt N i D t _ I z T --� z ANDREW T STREET THE FELINE HOSPITAL KATHLEEN J. KEEFE-TEF `F .. �" X.M. •`�V ANTHONY 81 WEBB STREET & LLOYD G. TERNESo FLETV. CHER � [] N • No. 5017.E SALEM, MASS. 01970 16 PICKMAN STREET SAL �a fFe 4r" x` 01970 71 O I I � w , a � I i x I G I I J 1 I a G I 1 THE FELINE HOSPITAL KATHLEEN J. KEEFE-TE V M. ANTHONY 81 WEBB STREETV. & LLOYD G. TERNES fro FLE1GHER l No. 9017 n w o SALEM, MASS. 01970oho EFG/57�FG� 16 PICKMAN STREET SALE 1970 m z r,� r O - - - - _ L i I 0 � z N , i O Fri i4' THE FELINE HOSPITAL KATHLEEN J . KEEFE-T 1. /O ANTHONY Ng V. 81 WEBB STREET & LLOYD G. TERNES ® No. 90 ER � u No. 9017 - 90 GISYE� ro�� FESS SALEM, MASS. 01970 16 PICKMAN STREET SALE �'A E�. 01970 1 i t; .7 � � \AXI '�° � Nim ♦ �I IL FU"I Rag 1L. m y II � UL IIIIII J i 1 Q Q w 1 ' i \ I 4 o oi . \ I I Q � i 71 I- o i -� 0 I- - - - - T- - - -T THE FELINE HOSPITAL KATHLEEN J. KEEFE-TER �N7 0 Y : /J FLETCNER w' 9017 ,Q c 81 WEBB STREET & LLOYD G. TERNES 9�FFSSIONAI.F^�G SALEM, MASS. 01970 16 PICKMAN STREET SALEM, MAS . 01970y