By MARK SARDELLA
WAKEFIELD — The Zoning Board of Appeals last week upheld a directive of the Building Inspector ordering a Salem Street woman to cease and desist from running a dog kennel out of her home – an activity she denies ever doing.
Danielle Blanchette of 65 Salem St. appeared before the Zoning Board of Appeals last week to appeal Building Inspector Benjamin DeChristoforo’s order dated Aug. 30, 2022.
Her attorney, Brian Brodigan, insisted that DeChristoforo’s order was “factually and legally incorrect.”
Brodigan said that the Building Inspector’s order was prompted by a neighbor’s complaint. The lawyer described an ongoing dispute between Blanchette and neighbor Charles Riley of 73 Salem St., who was also in the Zoom meeting.
The attorney said that his client has been a Wakefield resident since 2004 and during that time has had a business as a dog walker but has never run a kennel out of her home. He said that Blanchette goes to customers’ homes, typically during the day when they are at work, and walks the animals in their own neighborhoods or at a local park.
Brodigan said that Blanchette owns three dogs of her own and will occasionally bring several of her client’s dogs to her own backyard during the day, but never before 9 a.m. or after 2:30 p.m. She does not provide overnight care for her client’s dogs in her home, Brodigan insisted.
The attorney also acknowledged that Blanchette sometimes associates with other dog lovers who bring dogs to her home for social time.
Brodigan said that the word “kennel” is defined in neither the Wakefield Zoning Bylaw nor the Massachusetts Building Code, but the North American Industrial Classification System defines a kennel as a place “providing temporary overnight care.”
“That’s not what’s occurring here,” he said. “This is a neighbor who has issues with Ms. Blanchette.” He added that the Building Inspector issued the cease-and-desist order “without legal justification.”
He asked the Board of Appeals to reverse the Building Inspector’s decision.
Brodigan told the board that Riley had made threats and had been “verbally aggressive” toward Blanchette and the dogs.
For his part, Riley said that he supported the Building Inspector’s decision. He insisted that Blanchette was running an illegal kennel at her home.
“This is a full-service dog business,” he told the ZBA, including dog walking, dog-sitting and boarding. He also claimed that Blanchette had used abusive language toward him when he complained about the dogs.
Riley vehemently denied making any threats toward Blanchette or the dogs, calling such allegations “total character assassination.”
ZBA member Chip Tarbell said that even if Blanchette is not running a kennel, she’s bringing her customers’ dogs to her home during the day. He said that means that she is running a business out of her home which is not allowed in the General Residence Zone without a permit.
But Riley insisted that it was in fact a kennel operation. He claimed that Blanchette routinely has up to seven dogs at the house, including clients’ dogs, for a week or more.
He said his belief that Blanchette was running an illegal kennel was based on his own observations. He claimed to have seen dog owners bring bags of dog food as well as overnight supplies to Blanchette’s house.
He said that the excessive barking is disturbing the peace and goes on all day. He said that it’s gotten to the point where his wife doesn’t even want to go in the backyard.
ZBA members noted that they only had the words of two neighbors against each other. Board member Greg McIntosh observed that the Building Inspector’s letter ordered Blanchett to stop running a kennel. But if she’s not running a kennel, he wondered whether a ZBA decision was even necessary.
Tarbell suggested that the simplest course for the board would be to uphold the building inspector’s order to cease-and-desist from running a kennel. Blanchette would be free to continue her dog-walking business.
“She can’t run a kennel,” Tarbell said.
The board voted 5-0 to uphold the Building Inspector’s cease-and -desist order. Board members declined to address the mutual allegations of verbal abuse or any other aspect of the case other than the Building Inspector’s decision.
