This is my first letter to any newspaper forum. I am just very upset with the Queen Creek City Council denying a permit to Reservation Rewards Animal Rescue. Don’t they realize that the Queen Creek/San Tan Valley area is a dumping ground for dogs and cats?
This lady is the only one in this area helping these animals. Mostly, you just see them dead on the side of the roads out here. I want to commend Sheila Iyengar for the job she has done caring for everyone’s unwanted castoffs. No one else has come forward to do this and we all know the fate of these animals when they go to animal control or a kill shelter.
To the neighbor, Mr. Rispoli who she has tried to please by keeping the dogs in their kennels, have a little compassion. Your lack of sleep means a death sentence to these animals if she can’t get another no-kill overcrowded shelter to take them.
To the Queen Creek City Council, how could you be so heartless to a bunch of homeless and unwanted dogs who want nothing more to be fed, watered and loved? Shame on all of you!
Joyce Grossman, San Tan Valley/Queen Creek
—
Letters policy: Click here to submit a letter. Please be brief (no more than 300 words) and type or print name, address, city and phone number for verification. Comments may be edited for clarity and length.
JeffBrown posted at 6:29 am on Wed, Sep 15, 2010.
Letter from Mayor Barney regarding Town Council decision on Lotus Dog Training & Boarding
Posted Date: 9/14/2010
Dear Queen Creek Residents,
On September 1, the Queen Creek Town Council heard a request from Ms. Sheila Iyengar (Lotus Dog Training and Boarding) for a Conditional Use Permit to operate a commercial kennel at 18924 E. Chandler Heights Road. After a lengthy public hearing with testimony both in favor and in opposition, the Town Council voted 6-1 to deny the request.
Many of the reports that have been broadcast/published after the Sept. 1 meeting have been about Ms. Iyengar’s animal rescue operation, Reservation Rewards. However, the request made to the Town Council was specifically about allowing a commercial kennel with a capacity to handle up to 50 dogs at any one time to operate in this location. This type of business would require a Conditional Use Permit (CUP).
A “conditional use” means a use which, because of its unique or varying characteristics, cannot be properly classified as a “permitted use” in a particular area. A commercial dog kennel in a residential district, which is where Ms. Iyengar’s property is located, is one of those “conditional” uses. Conditional uses are not automatic, and must go through an extensive public involvement process
Prior to Ms. Iyengar purchasing the property, she met with Town staff to discuss opening her dog kennel business. She was advised that a Conditional Use Permit would be required, and provided with the steps to apply for that permit. The Town did not hear from her after those meetings, which took place in April, 2009.
Conditional uses are reviewed on a case-by-case basis to determine if the design and configuration of the business is appropriate for the location. A permit can only be granted after nine conditions have been met. These nine “tests” are summarized at the end of this letter.
In May 2010, the Town received a complaint about barking dogs at the property and determined a kennel was being operated there. After addressing the situation with Ms. Iyengar, she submitted an application for a permit in June and began the normal review process for a conditional use permit.
The Town Council heard many residents speak about the outstanding care that Ms. Iyengar provides to her animals, as well as the commendable work she does rescuing and rehabilitating dogs that need a home. We do not disagree in any way that the work Ms. Iyengar is doing is valuable, nor do we disagree that her work is of great service to the community.
However, the Town Council’s job is to make decisions for what is best for the community at-large in furtherance of long-term goals and visions. Although Ms. Iyengar’s work is meaningful and valuable, and after considerable review of the application and testimony, we determined it is not an appropriate business for a residential neighborhood.
Many comments have been made regarding what has been viewed as insensitivity to the rescue work Ms. Iyengar has been doing through her Reservation Rewards program. However, this particular case involved her commercial kennel operation (Lotus Dog Training and Boarding), not the rescue operation (Reservation Rewards). Should Ms. Iyengar wish to continue with her not-for-profit rescue operation, she is allowed, as is anyone living in a residential area, subject to the maximum six (6) dogs on her property.
As both residents of Queen Creek and leaders in the community, we empathize with Ms. Iyengar’s situation and would like to work with her to help find a more appropriate location for her business. Queen Creek needs caring individuals and entrepreneurs like Ms. Iyengar. It is often difficult to find a harmonious balance between the laws and policies that protect the community and the creative, entrepreneurial spirit of it’s residents.
Sincerely,
Gail Barney
Queen Creek Mayor
Nine conditions required to obtain a Conditional Use Permit
1. The proposed conditional use shall comply with all regulations for the zoning district, including the Town’s Design and Improvement Standards and Supplemental Use Regulations.
2. The proposed conditional use shall conform to the character of the neighborhood in which it is located.
3. Adequate utilities, access roads, drainage, fire protection, and other necessary facilities shall be provided.
4. Access to the property shall be designed to minimize traffic hazards and traffic congestion on the public roads.
5. The proposed use shall not be noxious or offensive by reason of vibration, noise, odor, dust, smoke or gas.
6. The proposed use shall not be injurious to the use and enjoyment of the property in the immediate vicinity (for the purposes already permitted), nor substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood.
7. The proposed use shall not impede the orderly development and improvement of surrounding property for uses permitted within the zoning district.
8. The establishment, maintenance, or operation of the proposed use shall not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, morals, comfort, or general welfare.
9. The public interest and welfare supporting the proposed conditional use shall be sufficient to outweigh the individual interests which are adversely affected by the establishment of the use.
Carolyn posted at 12:08 pm on Wed, Sep 15, 2010.
The "lack of sleep" by ONE neighbor should not have justified closing down this shelter. There are always ear plugs or other means - or she could have MOVED. What she has caused may be irreparable. If she were MY neighbor, I'd never, ever speak to her again, and if she got into "trouble," she'd never be able to count on my help. If the shelter did not comply with zoning, then the City Council should have made an exception in this case. The good the shelter did would have been worth it - Ms. Rispoli - simply wasn't "worth it."