so here's what happen

Ambush. Here is the Register Star article. Not bad. But they missed a big point: reclassification to commercial is a death sentance.

Dog barking: that was what I was there to appeal: a dog bark charge. It wasn't true. Obviously: they didn't vote to sustain that charge.

How is that they re-zoned me for entirely different reasons without telling what the reasons are and letting me have a chance to answer the new charge?

In August 2010, I was charged with producing "unusual noise .... that exceeds that which is produced by a normal residence." I appealed to the ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, ZBA. I proved I was totally innocent.

In July 2011, the board expanded the scope of the hearing beyond my appeal and issued a new list of charges. I was not guilt of any those charges either.

At the last minute, the board voted to ruin me and close my business. The resolution they passed would force me to keep all my dogs inside at all times. That won't work. It's bull.

The board voted to ruin me on the basis of reasons that I NEVER SAW before the hearing last night. They claim the Planning Board screwed up in 2009 and never should have issued the permit I have in the first place.

To make that argument they cite a lot of stuff that happened after 2009. But how would the planning board have known what would happen in the future? And where does it say that the ZBA can overrule the planning board?

Also, shouldn't they have told me what the charge was before they voted on it? There is A LOT OF FALSE information in this resolution they just passed.

Also to come: Melissa Naegeli claims that Patty Yerrick submitted the packet of materials relating to protected free speech. That may be but there is no way that Patty Yerick wrote the handwritten note that accompanies the packet.

The handwriting doesn't match.

The more substantial issue is the note. Who wrote it? Melissa Naegeli says its not a member of the board. Or did she only mean the photocopies? Reliable sources close to Melisssa Naegeli, clerk for the town of Stuyvesant, claim she says she did not write the note herself.

I'm just confused. A legitimate question: who wrote it?