Loading...
69 ORCHARD STREET - BUILDING JACKET rSuperTab® Owtsize6Ta4 Folders 90%Larger Label Area /// S M EAc KEEPING YOU ORGANIZED No.10301 arrawe WbUr4M GET 0RGANIZED AT SMEAD.COM r 10%p ratvaxirerr fUXF'Ost4VNSUMFR t� CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS a m k1 BUILDING DEPARTMENT Alil120 WASHINGTON STREET,31D FLOOR TEL. (978) 745-9595 FAX(978) 740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR THoMAs STYIERRE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROPERTY/BUILDING COkINUSSIONER 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 St.Pierre 4*�- Building Commissioner/Director of Inspectional Services a ��ONDtT;j� o CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS s BOARD OF APPEAL r 120\VA5FIIN0'rON S'iR[•:F.t' ♦ SN.ISAf,ML\SSA(:tiuSF:rrs 01970 Ki,\awiu.ry Daiscou. T ai.F::978-745-9595 ♦ FAX:978-740-98411th APR IS P 22 39 MAYOR 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 (R2 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: L Michele Conway, petitioner, and Jim Adams, abutter at 5 Manning Street, presented the petition for the property at 69 Orchard Street (R2—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 allow 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 Fl. 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 Flealth 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 (NIs. Curran, Nit. Dionne, Nit. Watkins, and Mr. Tsitsinos) and one (1) opposed (NIr. Duffy), to grant the petitioner's request to Appeal the Decision of the Building Commissioner. & r Rebecca Curran, Chair Board of Appeals A COPT OF THIS DECISION ELAS BEEN FILED WITH THE PLicNNING BOARD AND THE CPCY CLERK Appeal from chis deasion, if any,shall be matte pursuant to Section 17 of the massarhusetts General Laws Chapter 40A, and shall be filed within 20 clays o%filing of this decision in the office at the City Clerk. Pursuant to the Massacbaretts General Laws Chapter 40A, Section 11, the t arianee or Special Permitgranted herein shall not take ef�ert until a copy of the decision bearing the certificate of the City Clerk has been filed mitis the Essex South Registy of'Deeds, \, CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS s f � BUILDING DEPARTMENT 120 WASHINGTON STREET,3� FLOOR TEL. (978) 745-9595 FAX(978) 740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR T IoMAs STTIERRE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROPERTY/BUILDING COMMISSIONER 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 framework 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 you 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 file your appeal for the February meeting. If an appeal is not filed for the March hearing, I will start daily fines and further enforcement actions. Sincerely, Th mas StTierre 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 1 am Cunning an agricultural operation at 69 Orchard Street and your sending me a cease and desist order. l would like to provide you with some information regarding my decision to keep pet chickens, and the process 1 went through with the City of Salem. From the start, I 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. 1 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, 1 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. 1 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 1 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. 1 do not feel that it is just that l 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, //J i l IVlichele Conway2-.--� CC: Mayor Driscoll Robin Stein CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING DEPARTMENT �,, /r 120 WASHINGTON STREET,31O FLOOR - \o� "jam TEL. (978) 745-9595 FAX(978) 740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR THomAs ST.PIERRE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROPERTY/BUILDING COMMISSIONER 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 framework 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 feet you 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 file your appeal for the February meeting. If an appeal is not filed for the March hearing, I will start daily fines and further enforcement actions. Sincerely, Thomrl, O'm t.Pierre 16444 G Building Commissioner/Zoning Officer CITY OF SALEM MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING DEPARTMENT 120 WASHINGTON STREET'3ftD FLOOR TEL. (978) 745-9595 FAX(978) 740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR THOMAS STTIERRE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROPERTY/BUILDING COMMISSIONER 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 fines and further enforcement actions. ThomAPierre������� Building( Commissioner/Director of Inspectional Services CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS BUILDING DEPARTMENT 120 WASHINGTON STREET,3R FLOOR ay✓� TEL. (978) 745-9595 FAX(978) 740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR THOMAS STTIERRE DIRECTOR 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 farm 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 Salem Zoning Board of Appeals. C4n4 440 Thomas St.Pierre Building- Commissioner/Director of Inspectional Services T- t ` CITY OF SALEM, MASSACHUSETTS if sa � BUILDING DEPARTMENT 120 WASHINGTON STREET,3r°FLOOR TEL. (978) 745-9595 FAX(978) 740-9846 KIMBERLEY DRISCOLL MAYOR THOMAS STTIERRE DIRECTOR 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 �r Building Commissioner/Director of Inspectional Services