Elizabeth Geisinger lives in Natick. She calls herself an "entrepreneur." Now, some Natick residents want to shut down the Natick location of her business called "Doggy Dates."

NATICK – Neighbors want to shut down a local dog kennel, but the owner said she has the right to be in business.

A lawsuit filed Sept. 4 in state Land Court asks a judge to annul the Planning Board's decision to allow the kennel, which goes by the name Doggy Dates, to operate in a residential neighborhood at 42 Leach Lane. The suit also seeks reasonable costs and fees and other relief determined by the court.

Before Doggy Dates received the Planning Board's special permit, the vans the business used reached the property by 42 Leach Lane. That access ended, however, because the vans had to cross a private driveway at 45 Leach Lane. That property is owned by Charlotte Hunnewell, who didn’t want the vans crossing her driveway and interfering with her tenants, Doggy Dates owner Elizabeth Geisinger said.

Once the permit was granted, the vans started using Brook Street, which turns onto Brooks Lane, a dirt road that winds its way through a wooded area to the Doggy Dates plot.

Neighbor John Cosimini, who lives at 10 Brook St., is one of several property owners listed as plaintiffs in the lawsuit. All live on Brook Street and Brook Lane, near the kennel.

Cosimini told the Daily News he wants Doggy Dates to leave town, because increased traffic is a public safety problem. He loves his neighborhood because it's quiet.

“I don’t like listening to dogs barking all day," Cosimini said of Doggy Dates.

The Natick location is on a third of an acre, divided into three fenced-in sections, in the middle of the Hunnewell Farm. Geisinger said the business doesn't intrude on neighbors.

“You can’t see a single neighbor, you can’t hear a single neighbor, and you can’t hear barking,” Geisinger said of the location. She rents the spot from Elizabeth Hunnewell.

Doggy Dates serves 17 towns, including Natick, according to its website, providing exercise and socialization for dogs in fenced-in areas. A Doggy Dates van drops the dogs off, gives them 45 minutes of play time, and returns them to their owners. In Natick, dogs are dropped off three times daily, Monday through Friday, between 8:45 a.m. and 3 p.m. Each drop-off includes six to eight dogs.

The lawsuit challenges the Planning Board’s decision on several fronts: the board violated numerous zoning bylaws; Brook Lane has become a safety hazard, because it’s too narrow to support Doggy Dates vans, private cars and pedestrians; property values will suffer; and, Doggy Dates is an environmental hazard, because urine and feces will contaminate an aquifer recharge zone.

Dog poop is picked up twice a week by a company called DoodyCalls.

Geisinger challenged the urine claim. She said dogs in a pen are the equivalent of farm animals in a restricted area, and no one complains about how that urine is bad for the environment. Geisinger also mentioned that her business limits the number of dog walkers that allow pets to urinate on private lawns and public rights of way.

“I don’t think (the plaintiffs) care about urine. It’s ridiculous,” Geisinger said.

The complaint includes another claim – Doggy Dates doesn’t meet Natick’s definition of a dog kennel, because it’s an operation that didn’t exist when the definition was crafted more than 50 years ago.

Doggy Dates owns nearly 10 fields where dogs gather for exercise and socialization, and Geinsinger said Natick is the first town to challenge one of her locations.

Geisinger acknowledged she failed to foresee how neighbors would react to Doggy Dates vans traveling on the quiet paths of Brook Street and Brook Lane.

Doggy Dates had operated in Natick for two years under a DBA (Doing Business As) license before it received the special permit in July. The DBA was recommended by Natick's animal control officer, Geisinger said. She applied for a special permit, after told it was needed to continue doing business.

Besides Cosimini, others listed in the lawsuit include Abner Kurtin, Helen Cosimini, Anthony and Judy Cosimini, Harold and Sally Legge, Leada Sarram and Reza Mollaaghababa, Richard and Albina Shatzman, Valeria Monlina and Matthew Wagstaff.

Defendants include Doggy Dates and the Planning Board members, including: Chairman Glen Glater, Terri Evans, Andrew Meyer, Julian Munnich, Peter Nottonson and John Wadsworth. Calls to Glater for comment were not returned by the print deadline for this story.

As for the lawsuit, Geisinger is “Confident we will win, because the truth is on our side."

John Cosimini is clear about what he wants. He laments the Doggy Dates vans traveling by his home, in a neighborhood he said used to be quiet.

“I want Doggy Dates gone and that (special permit),” John Cosimini said.

Follow Henry Schwan on Twitter @henrymetrowest. He can be reached at hschwan@wickedlocal.com or 508-626-3964.