Xerxes Wilson

The News Journal

The pastoral village of Centreville is home to Delaware's most investigated not-in-my-backyard battle.

New Castle County code enforcers said they paid visits to two homes nearly 100 times in the past three years, even staking out the properties with 46 visits in a single week in 2016.

Among the feuding neighbors, the question is who is truly the nuisance – the homeowner complaining or the home-business owners on the receiving end of his unending protests?

Dan Larnick contends he is a prisoner in his Centreville home, held hostage by a laser and skin care spa on one side and a psychologist's office on the other. A bank employee and licensed Realtor who has lived in his home 14 years, Larnick contends the businesses bring unwanted vehicles, noise and lights to his neighborhood off Kennett Pike.

Larnick insists that county officials have looked the other way while his neighbors skirt rules for home-based businesses, allowing them to cater to the area's monied residents while avoiding higher rents in the commercial heart of the village. County statutes say home-based businesses must be the owner's primary residence. But owners of the homes on either side of him are rarely on the properties outside of business hours, Larnick insists.

Last June, county regulators dismissed Larnick's longstanding complaints.

Yet Larnick is unrelenting. He's filed fresh complaints on top of the 350 emails, many including photos, sent to the county over the past three years. The county said all that correspondence and photos does not add up to violations of the law, which makes Larnick's blood boil.

"The fix is in," Larnick said. “The Delaware Way is corrupt!”

On the other side of this bubbling quarrel are Judy Stellini, who owns the skin spa Bijin Delaware, and Jay Jemail and Joseph Ternes, who practice psychology in the home on the other side of Larnick.

Jemail, who has practiced psychology in the home next to Larnick's the past 23 years, characterizes her neighbor as a serial complainer who spies on her house day and night. Jemail said she has complained to authorities about Larnick's behavior.



“He is a nuisance, and he is harassing," Jemail said. "He is persistent – even after he is told there is no reason for his complaints. It is a concern when I see in his emails that he is looking at my property all times during the day and night.

"That is almost like a Peeping Tom. He is taking pictures. ... That is disruptive and worrisome."

State police confirmed that they have been called multiple times to referee the feud on Kennett Pike, which sees an average of 11,000 vehicles pass per day.

Stellini declined to comment. And when a News Journal reporter knocked on her door, she called police – an example, friends said, of how the feud has put her on edge.



The feud has consumed code enforcers. Last year's stakeout demonstrates the county effort expended on the case.



"We did this virtually around the clock, morning through night, just to try to substantiate what was going on," said Jim Smith, assistant general manager of the county's Land Use Department.

Smith said county code enforcers spent more time refereeing issues raised by Larnick than any other code enforcement concern in the 500-square-mile county last year.

STORY: With land limited, builders target Delaware golf courses

STORY: Six retail/residential projects to look for in 2017

"I don't even think it is close," added code inspector Joseph Day.



Bill Rhodunda, a land use lawyer who represents both Jemail and Stellini, said the county should stop investigating Larnick's "disturbing obsession."



"The bigger issue is the county is expending tremendous resources on invalid complaints," said Rhodunda, who was the county's top attorney for five years before returning to private practice. "It is beyond outrageous he gets any credence. The facts he portrays are misleading, and the county knows it.”



Last June, then-acting General Manager of Land Use, George Haggerty, tried to end the long-simmering squabble. He sent a letter to Larnick detailing the county’s investigation of each complaint he had made, finding that the businesses next door were operating within the law.



That didn't satisfy Larnick, though. He continues to needle county code officials with emails and pictures supporting his claims, arguing officers investigated the issue with “blinders on” because of the businesses owners' "political pull."



Haggerty said he's disappointed the fight drags on.



“We tried to meticulously document [our work],” Haggerty said. “What is disheartening is you present him with the results and facts and that is not sufficient.”

Counters Larnick: “I pay $6,500 in [property] taxes a year. What do I get for that? I've got nuisance properties beside my house."



County officials said the law demands that they continue to investigate fresh complaints – even when filed on top of those already dismissed.



"We can't pick and choose which violations we look into just because it is someone who has complained a lot," said Richard Hall, who became general manager of the county's Land Use Department in January. "We don't get to make that call."

Defining a nuisance

This fight began in August 2013, even before Stellini moved her business to the residential area on the outskirts of Centreville from a commercial area in Stanton. Larnick wrote to local real estate agent Ian Bunch, who was marketing the home Stellini bought: “No matter what excuse is being used, it is not legal to use [the home] as a commercial property."



After Stellini moved in, emails provided by Larnick show Bunch told Larnick to “stop stirring the pot and send her some flowers. It is a small town.”

Larnick peppered county email accounts with pictures of a small tree cut down on his property as well as a larger one "excessively" trimmed while the Stellini property was being landscaped. He contends the trimming was excessive because more than 25 percent of its limbs were removed, a violation of special land use rules that apply to Centreville, known as the Centreville Village Plan. Larnick hired an arborist, who said 32 percent of the tree's limbs were removed, he said.

The county determined the trimming was not a violation. And Smith said in an interview that the small tree wasn't 4 inches in diameter, the minimum to fall under village regulations. Even if it was, Smith said, Larnick would be the one cited because a tree was cut on his property – outside village plan rules.

"Why even have the rules?" Larnick asked.

He also lodged email complaints against Jemail for building a fence between their properties higher than the maximum 6-foot height allowed by county rules. The village rules say fences should be no higher than 3 feet.

Code enforcers determined that since the fence was only marginally over the maximum 6-foot height limit allowed under county statutes, adding mulch at the bottom to raise the ground – rather than lowering the fence – satisfied county requirements, Smith said.

Smith said the village regulations don't apply because the fence isn't close enough to the road and replaced an existing fence.

Larnick said the fence issue demonstrates how code enforcement officials have let things slide.

"They are enabling them," Larnick said.



Larnick's kitchen window looks out onto Stellini's driveway and parking lot, and he said more than 10 vehicles enter and exit some days. Vehicles come and go from both properties after normal business hours at both homes, changing the character of the neighborhood, Larnick contends.

"Cars get lost, turn around in our driveway," said Larnick, who lives with his wife in his two-story home. "There are car door beeps, cigarette butts, people hanging around outside. … I can’t even open my windows.”



Larnick's many emails include photos of multiple cars parked at the businesses, claiming they are creating a nuisance.



County law requires home businesses to be "indistinguishable" in appearance, and associated traffic should not "interfere with the comfort, safety or enjoyment of the neighborhood" or create a "traffic annoyance to persons of normal sensibilities such that a public nuisance is created."



But county officials and Larnick disagree on what constitutes a nuisance and what "indistinguishable" looks like.

Code inspectors studied traffic and client schedules for the businesses before determining they were “indistinguishable” from the surrounding homes, according to the June 2016 letter Haggerty wrote to Larnick.

"Of course they say that," Larnick said. "They don't live here."



Smith said traffic was similar to what one would see at any residential home.



"Typically, when we look at a driveway, there are no cars there," Smith said, adding that the definition of a nuisance is subjective.



Jemail declined to state how many customers come in and out of her office on a daily basis. And Smith noted that owners of each home will have visitors that are not business-related.



Added Rhodunda: "The complaining party frequently complains about guests and relatives who visit the property, complaining that they are associated with the business, but they are not."

STORY: 671-home Odessa National project nears completion

STORY: Hockessin's Valley Road eyed for housing development

During the past few years, the county has cited both Stellini and Jemail for business signs outside the homes and other issues. Stellini also was sent a violation notice after “multiple complaints” about “laser" lights emanating from the windows of the business’ medical space, according to the violation sent in January 2015.



“You can see how bright those medical lights look from the procedure room in the second picture. You can hear the noise, ‘thump, thump, thump,’ from the sidewalk this medical laser or equipment make,” Larnick wrote in a November 2015 email to county officials.

The citations were eventually rectified without any fines. Smith said noise, lights and traffic do not create a nuisance under the county code and would not be considered "obtrusive" under the village plan. Officials ordered Stellini to keep windows of the medical space shaded.

Rhodunda likened Larnick's picture-taking to "spying" on his clients. But Larnick said he is simply trying to provide evidence of noncompliance, as requested at different times by county officials.

County law also tries to limit the noticeability of such businesses by mandating that no more than 25 percent of the square footage of the home can be used commercially. At one point, in September 2013, a code inspector observing Stellini’s business noted that it appeared “the entire home is being used for business activity,” according to a violation notice.

A later inspection found that approximately 23 percent of the square footage of Stellini's building was used for her business. Larnick accuses the county of lowballing the estimate by not including some of the space customers use.



"They are trying to protect them," Larnick said.



Smith said the county uses similar square footage measurements as those applied for tax purposes by the Internal Revenue Service. A customer walking down a hall otherwise used outside of commercial purpose doesn't mean the hallway should be counted as business space, Smith said.

STORY: NCCo Council approves development code updates

STORY: County can make developers improve traffic, Supreme Court rules

Larnick also complained that the businesses “unlawfully” employ staff members that add to the daily stream of traffic. He hired a private investigator to track the identity of another doctor practicing out of Jemail's home.

County rules say home businesses cannot have additional employees unless a special agreement is signed with the county. Stellini signed that agreement in 2013, county officials told The News Journal. Jemail filed a similar agreement last year, according to county records.



“They had to get those permits after a conversation from Land Use,” Smith said. "The very first thing we do is alert them if they have nonresident workers or exceed the number; they have to file an agreement with us.”



Jemail, Ternes and William Silver practice at the home, Jemail said. Her husband and the other doctor do not live there, she said. Silver is not listed on the home-occupation agreement filed with the county, according to the agreement.

Larnick contends the third doctor shouldn’t be able to practice there without being on the occupation agreement.





Jemail doesn't consider the other two practicing doctors "employees." And Rhodunda argued the county’s current rules for home businesses don’t apply to Jemail because her business was operating before the regulations became law more than a decade ago.

Smith said it could be argued that the third doctor simply “augments” the business and “arguably” it would be irrelevant because the business could be “grandfathered” into previous rules that didn’t require such agreements.

“If he is there and he is not on the home occupational agreement, I’d like to find out a little more about that,” Smith said.

What does 'primary residence' mean?

At the heart of Larnick’s complaints is the question of how often the business owners actually use the buildings as a residence.



In January 2015, the county sent Stellini a violation notice saying it had received reports that the home is not her primary residence. Things at that point were looking up for Larnick, who also received an email from Smith saying the county might need him as a witness to bolster “our position” that the owner “does not really live at the address.”



The county never adopted that position, though.

An “unannounced entry” in 2015 by code enforcement found it to be Stellini's residence, county officials said. The following year, Stellini provided a Delaware driver's license and Delaware vehicle registration, both listing the Centreville address.

That satisfied code enforcers. According to Smith, Stellini provided “several reasons that add credence to why she is not there as much as [Larnick] says she needs to be there."

Larnick disagreed. But he turned his attention to Jemail's residency.

Based on a complaint from Larnick, the county sent Jemail a violation notice in November 2015, stating she was failing the residency requirement. She was given a month to remedy the issue.

Jemail told a code officer that she was not previously living in the Kennett Pike home full time, but she had recently changed that, code enforcement documents show.



The following January, Jemail and her attorney Rhodunda appeared at a land use hearing, and Rhodunda testified that a “non-traditional marriage” arrangement with Ternes led to Jemail also owning property in Pennsylvania, where her husband lives. Rhodunda added that the Kennett Pike address was his client's full-time residence, and Jemail provided Delaware driver's license and Delaware vehicle registration with the Centreville address to back it up.

The county was satisfied. Again, Larnick feels the law isn't being followed.

“They are rarely here outside business hours,” Larnick said. “I’ve showed them where [Jemail] really lives."

Smith said residents have the right to have a second home, and it isn't necessary for them to sleep at their primary residence every night.

Larnick said "somebody" has been advising the owners on how to circumvent the spirit of the law, a charge county officials flatly deny any part in.

Jemail said county officials have never advised her to change her license or other residency documentation. In an interview with The News Journal, she added that "there was nothing to change." The home has "always been" her "primary residence," she said.

Later, her attorney clarified that Jemail lived there with her mother from 1993 until she died in 2010.

“She only did not live there for a short time after she remodeled after her mom passed away,” Rhodunda said. “The house has been her primary residence since.”

Larnick feels Ternes should have to live there. The county disagrees.

Larnick has criticized the county for not staking out other addresses where he believes the neighbors actually live – or probing their tax filings.

Hall said code enforcement has no right to resort to “nanny state” tactics.

"Spying on how many hours you stay there is not something that is typically done as a standard for residency," Hall said. "In other words, [residency] is what you say it is."



Smith said the disagreement boils down to vagaries in the law.



“It is a very tough standard and one that probably shouldn't be in the code,” Smith said.

No sign of ending

This conflict has expanded beyond the three houses grouped together on Kennett Pike.

Jemail does not believe Larnick represents the community's sentiment. Bunch, the real estate agent and member of the Centreville Civic Association, said the conflict led to Larnick's demotion in the neighborhood group, which later welcomed Stellini.

Land Use officials said other than Larnick's allegations, they've received two anonymous complaints about the businesses, as well as a letter from a woman who has since moved out of the area.

Larnick said his neighbors paint him as the vigilante when he and his wife "simply want to enjoy our biggest financial investment in peace" and "protect the neighborhood." He circulated a petition asking the county to mediate the issue and gained signatures from more than 30 Centreville residents, he said.

STORY: Brandywine Country Club development plan returns

STORY: Fearing shortfall, NCCo nips at spending

"The neighborhood has spoken," Larnick proclaimed.

Sue Weingrad, who has lived in the neighborhood for 17 years, signed the petition.

She frequently walks the sidewalk on Kennett Pike with her kids and said she is always sure to warn them of cars entering and exiting driveways of the two businesses. She said she previously fought a now-closed massage business that opened in a home across from her house deeper off of Kennett Pike.

"I don't think anyone would want that next door to them," Weingrad said. "I'm disappointed. I think he does have valid concerns, and you are disappointed in the people who he has contacted for a solution."

County officials have responded to Larnick's persistent complaints by suggesting he take his case to "another venue." Larnick said he wants to avoid the cost of a court battle and believes the evidence he has presented – and continues to gather – should be sufficient for the county to take action.



"How is this allowed in a residential neighborhood?" Larnick said. “Would you want this beside your house?”

Larnick hammered former County Executive Thomas P. Gordon before he left office in January. Gordon last week said the feud exposed gaps in the law.



“It is a real complicated case, but it does look like [the businesses] are pushing the limits,” Gordon said. “I continually asked Haggerty to investigate it, but he would look at it and say [Larnick’s complaints] are not true.”



Councilman Bob Weiner, who represents the area, declined last week to comment on Larnick but spoke generally about the law.



"No law can ever address everyone's subjective personalities," said Weiner, who co-wrote the home-business rules.



The county's June letter to Larnick outlined potential changes to home-based business statutes to avoid such fights in the future. Those included annual use permits that would have to be renewed upon inspection, limiting the number of cars that go in and out of a residence and actually defining the word nuisance.

Smith said the county has never gone to court to shut down a home business. Most, like Stellini and Jemail, comply with the rules when cited, he said.

"In the spirit of cooperating, we bring [violations] to businesses and then give them the opportunity to do what is right by code," Smith said.

Larnick said he hopes County Executive Matt Meyer, who took office in January, will see the rules in a different light.

"I pray that Matt Meyer follows up on his campaign promise to bring transparency,” Larnick said.

Haggerty said the county has done its best.

"The [neighborhood] petition and heartstring arguments we certainly we take into consideration," Haggerty said. "But at the end of the day, all we have to react upon is what the regulatory laws are."

Jemail said enough is enough. She wants the complaints to stop, adding, "He is using government resources to harass."

Contact Xerxes Wilson at (302) 324-2787 or xwilson@delawareonline.com. Follow @Ber_Xerxes on Twitter.