This is a printer-friendly version of an article from Zip06.com.
01/15/2018 11:00 PMAnimal Haven, a nonprofit organization that shelters cats and dogs, is seeking approval from the Planning & Zoning Commission (PZC) for a special permit to build an addition to the shelter to provide more room for its cat population. However, some residents nearby are against the application, citing noise concerns, and the PZC wants to make sure the shelter is in compliance with a previous site plan application.
The public hearing for the application started at the December 2017 PZC meeting. Attorney John Lambert, who represents Animal Haven, said at that meeting the proposed expansion is in anticipation of new regulations coming from the Department of Agriculture to improve habitats for sheltered animals.
Animal Haven President Linda Marino said the shelter is also currently renovating its existing building, such as improving its HVAC system, to stay on top of the forthcoming regulations and provide a healthier environment for its animals.
At the Jan. 8 PZC meeting, Lambert said another reason for the addition is that space was taken from the areas for cats in the existing building to improve space for medical, sanitation, and other functions of the shelter.
Those in favor and opposition of the project got to speak at the December 2017 meeting. Animal Haven is located at 89 Mill Road in a residential area, and while several residents spoke in favor of the application and the benefits it would provide to the animals, there were residents near the shelter who spoke in opposition.
Residents nearby were upset about the noise that barking dogs cause throughout the day, and there were some concerns that the added space could be used to expand the dog population. There were concerns that noise levels would increase because of construction, and the commission was urged to impose regulations to help alleviate their concerns about noise from the animals.
Lambert said at the December meeting that the shelter usually has about 19 dogs, which is the most that can be housed at Animal Haven. He said the cat population is usually around 60 to 80, but that the proposed addition’s purpose isn’t meant to enable an increase in the number of animals the shelter can aid; the population won’t increase with added space.
Another concern brought forward was that Animal Haven may not have followed the site plan for the existing building granted in 2000; residents specifically mention missing fencing and plantings that would help diminish the shelter’s impact on neighbors. At the January 2018 meeting, Lambert addressed those concerns and said Animal Haven would comply with those conditions. Marino said those fixes will come as soon as the weather permits.
However, Lambert said Animal Haven was opposed to moving a few exercise pens further away from the property lines, stating that those can be closer to property lines because they don’t actually house the animals and setbacks differ based on housing structures and exercise pens.
He also said the pens have been there for over three years, and statutes state that structures are allowed to stay in place if no action was taken in court three years after they were put in.
John Parese, an attorney representing residents near Animal Haven, asked the commission to impose conditions on the shelter such as a 30-foot vegetation buffer between properties, removing outdoor lighting (which he alleges wasn’t on the 2000 site plan and is intrusive on his clients’ property), and to have someone from Animal Haven be on-call overnight in case of a noise issue.
The hearing was left open and no decisions were made regarding the addition, with a main reason being Land Use Administrator Alan Fredricksen’s request to have more details on the site plan for the addition, saying the new site plan doesn’t show enough existing features. Fredricksen said he and Town Engineer Jonathan Bodwell would arrange to meet with project architect John Torello to go over what they want to see on the plan.
As to what’s next, Lambert said, “It’s clear that our site plan needs to reflect the comments that I mentioned that we agree with, and it’s clear that there is something more that the staff wants, and the staff thankfully wants to meet with people.”
For conditions to the proposed addition, Lambert said the PZC is entitled to impose conditions that have a substantial relationship to the addition. He gave an example, saying visual screening would relate to the addition, but a noise buffer doesn’t bear a relationship to what they’re asking for now.
Dogs are allowed outside from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m., and Lambert questioned the frequency of dog barking at night. He said during both the December and January meetings that the application isn’t about barking dogs.
“[The PZC] made a decision 17 years ago, and they approved all of the dogs we have, and therefore all of the barking,” Lambert said, “There’s nothing there really, that even if we put in the things they’ve asked for, that’s going to do anything about barking.”
The next PZC meeting is scheduled for Monday, February 5 at 7 p.m.