Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Animal Control topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Norwood ZBA denies personal kennel permit at 141 East Cross Street after neighbors cite barking, odors and containment problems
Summary
The Zoning Board denied Yana Sadelowski’s request for a personal‑kennel special permit to keep more than three dogs after extensive neighbor testimony about persistent barking, inadequate fencing and odors; the board cited land‑use compatibility concerns.
The Norwood Zoning Board of Appeals voted Feb. 10 to deny a special permit that would have allowed resident Yana Sadelowski to keep more than three dogs at 141 East Cross Street.
Sadelowski told the board she has kept Irish setters for 17 years and currently has five dogs. She said she does not run a commercial kennel, described the dogs as well groomed and said she sometimes grooms friends’ dogs as a favor. "I always keep them under control," she said during her presentation. The application sought relief under the town zoning bylaw provision that requires a personal‑kennel special permit when more than three dogs over three months of age are kept on a residential property.
Neighbors and other residents who spoke at the public hearing described ongoing problems they attribute to the property: repetitive, long‑duration barking triggered by routine neighborhood activity; inadequate containment using rusted welded wire or "chicken" wire; and seasonal odors. Kathleen Nally, who lives adjacent to the property, testified that the dogs barked repeatedly when she was outside and that the existing fence was inadequate: "When we were outside ... the dogs were barking, jumping up on her chicken wire, and my fence was going back and forth," she said. Multiple speakers said they had submitted letters and expressed similar concerns about noise, containment and odor.
Board members confirmed the animal control officer had visited the property and the building inspector had submitted a memo. During deliberation the board cited the land‑use compatibility criterion in the zoning bylaw and said the record shows persistent off‑site impacts to neighboring properties. The board noted it can attach conditions to a special permit — for example, limits on dog numbers, containment, or an annual inspection by the animal control officer — but said the submissions before it did not demonstrate sufficient controls were already in place or likely to be implemented.
A motion to deny the special permit, made and seconded by board members on the floor, carried unanimously among the four members present. The board’s denial means the applicant may reapply with additional mitigation proposals or pursue other remedies. The animal control officer, the Board of Health, and zoning enforcement were cited as potential enforcement channels for neighbors if problems persist.
