Peabody City Council on Thursday approved a special permit allowing a dog-training business to operate at 1 Sylvan Street as a training facility with no overnight boarding, and later asked the city solicitor to advise whether the state's new kennel requirement can be handled by an administrative transfer rather than repeated special-permit hearings.

The permit for the applicant identified in meeting materials as Bria Tero was approved on a motion that included nine standard health-related conditions supplied by the health department. Councilor Peach moved to approve the special permit; the motion carried by an 11-0 vote.

Attorney John Kelty, representing the applicant, told the council the business has operated at the location for years and that recent state rule changes now require what the state calls a kennel license even for training and day-use facilities. "The state has changed some of the rules and regulations with respect to this kind of activity," Kelty said. "They have indicated that dog training, dog discipline, etcetera ' is all going to require a kennel license on the local level." Kelty also confirmed the applicant will not add overnight stays and said the facility will remain in the same space.

Councilor Turco asked whether the property owner had been contacted about unpaid taxes; Kelty said he had spoken to the owner, who pledged to attend to an outstanding real-estate tax bill.

Later in the meeting several councilors raised the broader issue that the state's definition could force long-established grooming, training and daycare operations to seek special permits. The city clerk summarized the state requirement as coming from "Ollie's law," describing the change as expanding the state's kennel-license requirement to some training and day-use operations. "Most of them are not going to have any boarding or kenneling of animals. And once we can issue the license, then [state inspectors] go down and inspect to make sure it's a safe facility," the clerk said.

Councilor Rosignol moved, and the council approved, a referral to the city solicitor asking whether the new state requirement can be implemented via an administrative transfer (for businesses already in good standing) instead of requiring each to reappear before the council. Several councilors said the intent is to limit the financial and time burden on longtime local businesses while ensuring health- and safety-related conditions are satisfied.

The council's action on the permit itself included the health-department conditions referenced in the staff packet; councilors also recorded concern about unpaid property taxes tied to the building owner (not the applicant). The city clerk's description of the state rule and the council's referral to the solicitor were explicit parts of the record.