101 BOSTON STREET - BUILDING JACKET 101 �� �_ i
," i3i1ti�R0 fif--" F;r�`r'#=rad
MEMORANDUM
TO: Salem City Solicitor CITY OF . �,i EH, 1.A S.
Salem Building Inspector
FROM: John R. Serafini, Jr.
DATE: February 20, 1987
The petitioner seeks to establish an office for the treatment of cats at 131
4- Boston Street'Which is located in a B-2 district. Among the uses permitted in's B-
"� 2 district are professional offices (see Zoning Ordinance Section V.A.5.a.). A veterinary
hospital is not a specifically permitted use in a B-2 district, but neither is it specifically
excluded. A veterinary hospital is permitted by Special Permit in a B-4 district. (See
Section V.B.7.a.). As the Ordinance defines "veterinary hospital" as "a building whose
sole use will be the medical or surgical treatment of animals, reptiles or birds", with
boarding limited to less than 20 days and no use as a kennel or for breeding purposes
(Section II.B.43), the petitioner's proposed use should not be considered a veterinary
hospital. The proposed office occupies only a part of the subject building and only
cats will be treated — not the whole range of animals; hence the building will not be
used solely for the treatment of animals. Therefore, the proposed use is not a veterinary
hospital, and rules regulating such use don't apply.
It is more appropriate to consider the petitioner's use as a professional office
than as a veterinary hospital. While a "professional office" is not defined by the Zoning
Ordinance, the petitioner, who holds a D.V.M. degree and is a practicing veterinarian,
is clearly a professional within the commonly accepted sense of that term. Because
the facility will not be used for the treatment of humans, it does not precisely satisfy
the Ordinance definition of clinic, which is also an allowed use in a B-2 zone (Section
V.A.5.a.). The proposed use is, however, more akin to a "clinic" as defined by the
Ordinance (Section II.B.9.) than to a "hospital" (Section II.B.22.), in that the petitioner's
clients will overwhelmingly be treated on an outpatient basis. Cats will be boarded in
the facility only in those few cases where their treatment requires boarding and,
generally, such boarding would be only on an overnight basis. Because of the transient
nature of the petitioner's clientele and the fact that the clients will be seen in an
office setting, treating the proposed use as a professional office appears more appropriate
than its considering it as a clinic or veterinary hospital.
In his Findings, Rulings & Order dated September-25, 1986, in Essex Superior
Civil Case No. 85-1222, Judge Highgas determined that the petitioner's proposed feline
treatment facility was an allowable use in an R-2 district, pursuant to a Special Permit,
for the reasons outlined above. Specifically, Judge Highgas found as a fact that the
facility was not a "veterinary hospital" as defined in Section H. B. 43 of the Ordinance,
in that there was no suggestion of use as a full-service veterinary hospital, "used for
the medical or surgical treatment of a variety of animals ranging from aardvarks to
zebras," with the concomitant adverse impact on the neighborhood. See Pelletier v.
Keefe-Ternes, Essex Superior No. 85-1222, Finding, Rulings & Order, p. 7 Highgas, J. .
Where the proposed use was found suitable in an R-2 district, logic demands that the
same conclusion be reached when considering the location of the same type of use in a B-
2 zone, where the impact of such use will be less, given the fact that a B-2 district
would be expected to be the more heavily commercialized of the two districts.
Salem Citv Solicitor
Salem Building Inspector
February 20, 1987
Page 2
Further, other uses which are allowed in a B-2 district can be considered as
intrusive or more so to the peace and quiet of the neighborhood than the petitioner's
proposed facility. Among these uses are restaurants serving alcoholic beverages, motels,
retail department.stores, and other retail uses which could, arguably, include pet shops
and pet grooming shops servicing both dogs and cats. Where these uses, among others,
are acceptable within the City's zoning scheme, it seems reasonable that the petitioner's
relatively quiet and unintrusive use should also be allowed in a B-2 district. This
appears particulary true in light of the fact. that the facility will treat only cats and
no dogs, will service a primarily transient clientele, and will, by and large, have no
animals kept on the premises for other than a short period of time.
16
p