WESTFIELD—The Westfield Planning Board last night did not approve of a special permit for a proposed dog kennel facility on Southwick Road.
The Planning Board voted four to two in favor of the special permit for the proposed kennel at Zuber’s at 98 Southwick Road last night, which was not enough to approve the permit due to at least five members being needed to approve. Concerns were voiced about the proposal due to noise, amount of dogs at the site and questions of how dog waste would be disposed of and stored.
Previously, the board had chosen to continue the public hearing to yesterday’s date, after an interpretation from Planning Board Chairman Philip McEwan questioned whether a commercial kennel could be allowed in business A zoning, which is where the proposal is.
Rob Levesque discusses the plans for a proposed dog kennel facility during the Planning Board meeting Nov. 21.
The city’s law department provided a memorandum for the Planning Board cautioning that denial for the use listed however, could lead to litigation, according to a letter read by Planning Board member Bill Carellas.
The proposal, according to Rob Levesque from R Levesque Associates, would be an indoor-only facility housing dogs in two buildings, with sound insulation. There would be a potential for up to 80 dogs to be at the location at a given time, which could be a combination of boarding, grooming and day care.
The sound insulation was to include 6-inch sound insulation with acoustic tiling. As for dog waste, such as urine and feces, it was proposed that it would be cleaned up and thrown away and possibly stored eventually inside of a covered dumpster. Also, there were previous concerns about nearby wetlands, but Levesque said that the inclusion of the facility to indoors resolved issues with the Conservation Commission about those wetlands.
Levesque said that regarding noise, the business would be harmed by excessive noise.
“From a noise standpoint these people do not want a problem, it would be catastrophic to their business,” he said.
According to Levesque, they attempted to address the city’s noise ordinance during the process, which he said does not allow nuisance noise from pets within 150 feet of neighbors. In addition, he said that noise regulations in the zoning require 60 decibel maximum during night time and 65 decibel maximum during the day time and the noise produced from the building would be below that.
He also said that the potential for noise pollution is mitigated by the facility being completely indoors, sound insulation, distance from other residences and even ambient noise from the street.
“We feel that we’ve dealt with the noise issue,” he said.
Residents though, voiced concerns about the noise that may be coming from the location. One resident, Tanya Grater, said that she contacted those that may manufacture the building to see how well the sound-proofing works.
Grater said that she found that the sound-proofing’s maximum effectiveness would be a 28-decibel reduction, according to a study done by the company on one of their buildings. She said after the meeting that the high point of a dog’s bark can average 125 decibels.
“This city, by approving this site, it is going to say that it is going to essentially violate its own ordinance,” Grater said.
Among other concerns brought forward by residents included what would occur with dog waste. Kristen Mello voiced concern about dog waste and its potential to contaminate nearby wetlands which are downhill from the facility, even if it were discarded as trash, also suggesting that it be handled as a biohazard.
Mello asked if the waste would be kept separate of other trash, which Levesque said it would not be, though it would be enclosed and that there would be a dedicated refuse area on the grounds.
Then, concerns were also brought forth about the well-being of dogs on site. These concerns were put forth during the meeting by Nicholas and Ali Connor, owners of Camp K9.
“No one’s talked about that but I have questions about safety and well-being,” Nicholas Connor said.
Nicholas Connor voiced concerns about the amount of space available to dogs at the site, with suggestions of space for dogs between 65 to 80 square feet; each building has about 1,050 square feet of space at the proposed site and could house up to 40 dogs in each building.
Levesque said that this would be something determined by other departments, such as Animal Control, Board of Health and the Westfield Police Department.
Ali Connor also asked for clarification on the amount of dogs that would be kept at the site, which Levesque said would be 80, but also said that it would be determined once the applicant, Sue Lamoureux, consulted with the architect of the building. Levesque also later said that the market would also help determine this.
Planning Board member Cheryl Crowe also voiced concerns over the amount of dogs at the site related to the amount of attendants that would be there overnight, which Lamoureux said would be just one.
In the end, the Planning Board voted, with the following as a “yes” vote: Cheryl Crowe, Robert Goyette, Raymond St. Hilaire, John Bowen. The “no” votes were: Bernard Puza and Bill Carellas. Members Jane Magarian and Philip McEwan were not present.
Puza said that he felt that the location was not the best spot, that the amount of dogs was too many for the property and that the amount of waste from that amount of dogs could be a threat to the nearby wetlands.
For Carellas, he said that he believed that the proposal did not conform to the zoning district or the neighborhood. In addition, he was concerned of the wetlands, as well.
After the meeting, Levesque said that the decision was a disservice.
“The reasoning given by planning board members were arbitrary and capricious,” he said.
For Lamoureux, she did not understand the aspect of wetland worries.
“I don’t understand the whole conservation thing,” she said. “The dogs aren’t in the back.”
