aka "The Dog Show"
Part One: The Preamble, before public comments, board, expert and attorney discussion.
|
Peter Lynch introduction (9.1M) He is Will Pflaum's attorney and is clearly very intellegent. I recomend listening to the cases he makes. He also handels himself very well when Tom Shanahan tries to make ridiculous arguments.
|
|
Tom Shanahan makes the absurb claim that because the town hired a new (expensive)
attorney, everything is now "different" . In reality Will Pflaum agreed to go to the Planing board and not the ZBA in the spirit of compromise. The town clearly does not have a case. (2.8M)
|
|
Gail Burry talks. Tal Rappleyea excuses himself from the case. This is later used to try to claim "all the rules have changed". (Next time you get a DWI try changing lawyers, use this excuse, and see how far you get.) Also Sean Cummings asks questions about the scope of the hearing. (3.0M)
|
|
Mr. Lynch (Will Pflaums's attorney) recaps after comment, talks about sound being subjective. (3.2M)
|
|
Peter Lynch (Will's lawyer) is grilled by Shanahan's attempt to be Perry Mason. Also Shanahan tries to claim that he thinks Will has violated conditions of the permit, because Will indirectly employs a given number of people. That's incorrect! Will paid me $50 to serve the town with his federal lawsuit. I hired someone to clean my house. Do I work for Will? Does my housekeeper? Does Shanahan not really understand what indirect employment means? (50M) |
| Planning Board Member Sean Cummings (5.6M) |
|
|
|
Martin Roby asks some follow-up questions and Sean Cummings responds. (15M)
|
|
Michael Sullivan from the Chamber of Commerce. (3.0M)
|
|
The new town attorney Mr. Everett follows up with questions (9.4M)
|
|
The Town of Stuyvesant (7.1M) violates Will Pflaum's rights by picking a very negative letter from Jean Hewitt who lives .8 miles from Mr. Pflaums family business. The town is trying to turn the crowd against Mr. Pflum before public comment starts. This violates Will's rights and at the same time the rights of all the people who wrote letters not read. Three additional [???] letters were submitted at this time: one from a New Lebanon teacher who adopted a dog from Glencadia Dog Camp, another from Louie’s Legacy Dog Rescue to thank Glencadia for helping find homes for dogs, and the last from the Vlad family, a close neighbor who supports the dog camp. This "selective reading" is a trick the town [??? town council?] has used before: reading only a subset of the letters, in order to mount a personal attack. The letter chosen by the town tries to get the board to disregard other peoples comments. It brings up personal issues and tries to attack Will at a personal level. This is another familiar Stuyvesant tactic: they accuse people of being a "bad neighbor" so that makes it seem more acceptable to violate their rights. |
|
Christian Christian points out all the other dog noise is being lumped together with the dog camp. |
|
William (Bill) Schrom attempts to get the planning board to restrict who can speak at the meeting. Glencadia employee Naomi Dyole wants to speak. Then Martin Roby points out it is absurd to change the rules to about who can speak in the middle of the meeting, just because Mr. Everett wants to stop the town planning board from taking this course of action and states The public can speak at public comment. He never spent in time in stuyvesant if he is supprised by this attempt..(1.6M) |
|
Peter Donahoe talks about being on the planning board for over 20 years; is now retired from Stuvyesant's branch of politics (8.9M)
|
| Ray Jurkowski talks about sound. He is an Engineer. (5.3M) |
Members of the public who speak
(Please email Martin Roby at stonepound@yahoo.com with any name misspellings, or you'd like a change in the summary.)
|
Susanna Pflaum Will Pflaum's mother, Susanna, talks about the family business and how Will grew up on a dairy farm. (6.2M) |
|
Carl Schools Never hears Will's dogs bark. Takes 2 mile walks. Concerned how the permitted use was revoked. Nothing changed. Also points out that property in Columbia County is overassessed and we should grieve taxes. Also talks about gravel mines. (12M) |
|
Pam Herzing Talks about all the different dogs in Stuyvesant Falls that have been barking for 25 years. Let's face it: there are dogs all over Stuyvesant (5.7M) |
|
Kate Reddy Lives across the field. Talks about the permit and the economy. (3.1M) |
|
Oliver GrannisTalks about the business and how it runs and Will being a stay at home dad (2.7M)
|
|
Daniel Barber Tells a good story about lawn mowers and sheep. He also talks about all the other noise that is ignored and should be because we all make noise. (16M) |
|
|
|
Judy Grunberg Chatham entrepreneur. She talks about the "tent" project in Chatham and sound issues. The loudest thing people could hear at the line was the cicadas. I want to point out I noticed the same thing from the end of Will's driveway. I tried to record it, but it's just not possible. (12M) |
|
Mark Young Talks about dog barking. "We live in the country." (3.0M) |
|
Martin Roby Comments. Points out that noise is subjective. (5.6M) |
|
Mary Kline Lives 540 yards (1,617 feet from the dog camp). I notice she spends a lot of her time making personal attacks against will; by accusing him of doing the same. Also seems to take lots of things will wore out of context to create a very negative letter. I have been in her area at night visiting friends and I can hear tons of Coyoties (18M) |
|
Frederick Platt Husband of Patricia Yerrick. Talks a lot about property values.. (7.0M) |
| Oliver Grannis Makes a lot of very good points. Talks about how Will runs his business. |
|
Janet Rybka (5.8M) |
|
Ollie Pflaum 8 years old. (1.2M) |
|
|
|
Shanna Pickwick According to GPS she is will's closest neighbor. She hears... no barking....
|
|
David Everett The town attorney talks, then planing board member Pat Casey talks. Then Mr. Everett talks. Although he has never been to the site and really has not looked into anything. Everything he says is "theoretically"; as it turns out I have been to the site and nothing he says applies to the site. Maybe people that somehow think the dog camp lowers their property values can magically hear better.
|
|
Patty Yerick Will's neighbor. She swore out a complaint about "habitual barking" |
|
Eric Rabuhihi Executive director of CHABA (Children Affected by HIV AIDS) in Kigali, Rwanda. |
|
Bill Schom Lives 2000 feet away. Talks about property values. Mr. Schom confuses horse manure and dog shit. Also he is the same one that tried to get the planing board to not listen to other peoples comments. Rants about property values; again makes personal attacks and claims will made man against him. A bit hypocritical if you asked me (5.6M) |
|
Amy Doyle Glencadia employee (7.6M) |
|
Other news in Stuyvesant A bed and breakfast will be located on Hollow Road (22M) |
Andrew Degiacomo's report about the meeting: Having not been familiar with the details of this neighbor issue, I attended the public hearing at Stuyvesant Town Hall on Tuesday night. The topic; loud and disturbing dog barking at the (sometimes up to) 50 dog kennel / “camp” on a rural side street in Stuyvesant Falls. Although there are no neighbors in close proximity, speakers who claim to be within ears shot of the kennel presented a mix of “hear no dogs barking at all ever” to “it’s non-stop all night”. The complaining neighbors assured supporters of the “dog camp” that if they were listening to barking dogs all the time, they too would be seeking relief. The substantial presence of supporters were quick to their feet speaking of good neighborly deeds and outstanding character of Pflaum. Also taking the podium were people from outside the town who came to share experiences with municipal sound ordinances that use a specific and measurable decibel point to base legal limits to noise. They maintained that otherwise, whether a sound is disturbing or not becomes a matter of subjectivity only. The standing room only audience became tense frequently. For example, when the Planning Board was poised to no longer allow public comment from those not living in Stuyvesant, there was an audible stir in the room. The Planning Board’s own attorney jumped in and diffused the situation by stating, “It’s a public hearing and anyone from the public can speak”. Board member, Sean Cummings spoke of his visit to the dog camp and findings of inaudible barking (while dogs were enclosed). Board member, Tom Shanahan grilled Pflaum’s attorney in a sarcastic power-play that was continuous and difficult to watch. At one point, both Shanahan and fellow Board member, Pat Casey stated in concert that Pflaum was in violation of having more than “two full time employees” which is all that’s allowed for a Stuyvesant “home business” permit. Casey and Shanahan believed that in Pflaum‘s own words, he had in avertedly confessed to this. From the behind dais, a section of a letter penned by Pflaum himself was read aloud to the room. In it, Pflaum states that his business in Stuyvesant is responsible for “directly and indirectly” employing six people. Pflaum maintains that the number represented both the two full time employees he has , and also other services to whom he in turn “indirectly” employs by nature of having a small business. What part of “directly and indirectly” do Shanahan and Casey not understand? Plaum’s attorney offered up payroll records to Stuyvesant Planning Board to demonstrate the two person payroll. The dog camp owner is offering his own compromises in order to work with the complainants. These measures include keeping the dogs enclosed from 7 PM until 7 AM each day. Midway through the speakers, it became evident that Plaum, although already given permission by this Board to conduct his business, was making his own concessions in an attempt to accommodate complaining neighbors, who in turn offered no solution other than shutting the dog camp down and restoring the values of their properties which they allege are now adversely effected. Ironically, two neighbors who have lived there for 35 years are Realtors disagree. They frequently walk the neighborhood and hear dog barking that is coming from the other households. They then listed neighboring homes to the few complainants that have dogs who are left out on leashes and enclosed in cages in other neighborhood yards. I see sloppy-speak on behalf of Planning Board Members that could add-up to some serious dollars in the tax-payer-funded “Stuyvesant Legal Defense Fund”. The town needs work with this local small business and hopefully attract more small businesses to town.