Danvers zoning board upholds order barring commercial dog daycare at 184 Center Street

The Town of Danvers Zoning Board of Appeals on June 23 upheld a cease-and-desist order that found a home-based dog daycare at 184 Center Street was operating as a prohibited commercial kennel in an R-3 residential zone.

The board's ruling came after about two hours of testimony and public comment. The vote to deny the applicant's appeal was 4-2; the board therefore sustained the zoning enforcement officer's determination that the operation could not continue in that residential zone.

The applicant, Melissa Nardone, told the board she has operated a small in-home pet care service at 184 Center Street for more than 10 years and said she had not received formal complaints about noise, traffic or animal care. "For more than 10 years, I have quietly and responsibly operated this from my home as a single mother, supporting both myself and my daughter," Nardone said at the hearing. She said clients are local, drop-offs and pickups are handled personally and the business does not increase street traffic.

Planning staff and the town's enforcement officer told the board the town's bylaws mirror the state definition of a kennel and that the rule distinguishes personal kennels (owner's dogs) from commercial kennels (care of other people's dogs). "We mimic the state law of a kennel, which is a pack of more than four dogs," Zoning Enforcement Officer Brian Cassidy told the board, explaining the enforcement letter followed an anonymous complaint and a public-way site check that led staff to conclude a commercial operation was occurring.

Board members repeatedly said their task was limited: to decide whether the enforcement officer erred in applying the existing bylaws. Several members praised Nardone's care of animals and the community support shown in letters and dozens of speakers, but concluded the officer's interpretation matched the current zoning text. "We're here to rule on whether the enforcement officer erred," said Zoning Board member John Bonner during deliberations. "It's clear she runs a quality business, but our hands are tied by the bylaws."

Dozens of residents and clients spoke in support of Nardone during the public-comment period. Several described personal stories of animal care, including emergency vet trips and long-term reliability. Town Meeting member Joanne Raguchi and other neighbors asked the board to consider the personal and community impacts of enforcing the bylaw; multiple supporters urged a remedy short of removing the service entirely. A number of speakers also suggested longer-term remedies, including petitioning Town Meeting to change the zoning use table or to allow special permits for small home-based pet-care services.

Board members and planning staff told the applicant what options exist within current rules: limit operations so no more than four non-owner dogs are on-site at any time (which would avoid the kennel classification), seek a change to the use table or zoning map at Town Meeting, or pursue other permitting avenues in commercial areas. The enforcement officer and staff stressed that changes to allow commercial kennel activity in residential zones would require a Town Meeting vote.

The Zoning Board's formal action was to uphold the enforcement officer's cease-and-desist order, denying the appeal. The board recorded the outcome as an unsuccessful appeal; the enforcement order remains in effect unless reversed by a subsequent petition to change the bylaws or other legal action.

The case drew strong community attention during the hearing and may prompt residents and the applicant to pursue the municipal processes staff described.