NEW SCOTLAND — Lauren Bachner is now without a kennel and out over $5,000 after six months of going through the process of applying for a special-use permit to turn existing buildings into a dog kennel and dog day-care at 425 Unionville-Feura Bush Road.

She submitted her application in April, and the New Scotland Planning Board held several public comment periods, where neighbors launched complaints and fears about odors, pollutants, and noise from a kennel in a residential/agricultural area.

Bachner had been running Four Paws Inn, her existing kennel, dog day-care, and grooming facility in Glenmont, throughout the process, and, she said, after several extensions of her lease due to the long process in New Scotland, could not get her lease extended past Sept. 30.

She did not inform the planning board that her lease was in jeopardy.

“For them, it’s not relevant,” she told The Enterprise yesterday.

On Tuesday, the board could not decide on her application because two of its five members were absent.

Bachner has incurred over $5,000 in costs for her attorney, water tests, surveys, and engineering fees to get her application up to snuff for the planning board.

“This has turned into something very expensive,” she said.

“To me, it’s a lot of expense for a ‘maybe’,” she continued. “It doesn’t seem fair or right.”

Bachner was running her kennel while working another full-time job at a not-for-profit agency, which she is still doing since having to close her kennel.

The public hearing was finally closed in August, and no planning board meeting was held in September, as the planning board chairman, Charles Voss, was not satisfied with the additional information she provided at the time.

Voss did not attend this Tuesday’s meeting, nor did Jo Ann Davies, a member of the board.

Because of their absence, no action could be taken unless all three present members of the five-member board voted the same way, making a majority of the board.

In the event that all three present members did not agree, the action item would be pushed until the next meeting, said Thomas Hart, who chaired the meeting in Voss’s absence.

That is what happened with Bachner’s application.

Hart read letters from both Voss and Davies for the record, which included their ghost votes, which would not count because they were not in attendance.

Voss’s letter boiled down to saying that Bachner’s enterprise “will not be a good fit,” for the proposed location, and “any future use [there] should be primarily residential in nature.”

As Hart read the letter, neighboring property owners gave each other thumbs-up signals and nodded in agreement.

Davies’s letter, however, did not garner the same approving gestures from the neighbors, as she was in support of the kennel, with a slew of conditions.

Hart then gave his opinion on the application, and described using the qualifications for making a decision on a special-use permit found in the zoning code.

“I’m envisioning it to be more like a day-care center,” he said, explaining his method of decision-making by comparing the kennel to another, similar, use that may be granted with a special-use permit. He surmised the traffic patterns and client numbers would be similar.

However, he did not believe that the kennel business could be successfully carried forward without a plethora of conditions that would be difficult to enforce.

“I would not want to attempt to apply conditions to make this an experiment in this community,” he said, giving his negative vote.

Robert Stapf has noted in previous discussions about Bachner’s application that many of the neighbors have dogs, and he mentioned this again Tuesday evening.

“Adjacent owners all have dogs, pretty much,” he said.

“I don’t see where an increase in traffic would have a negative impact,” he continued.

Stapf kept his comments short, and gave a positive vote for the kennel.

Kurt Anderson brought up several of the fears and complaints listed by neighbors over the past several meetings, and said he thinks many of them “don’t have merit.”

Two such fears are odors the dogs produce, and the contamination of neighboring wells by the dogs’ feces.

“I don’t know how you’re going to tell one dog from the other,” Anderson said when talking about smells.

He admitted that noise was the only significant issue, which has been addressed frequently throughout the meetings, and is negligible at the property line due to intense sound proofing to be put on the buildings, he said.

“It’s not the most ideal place to have a kennel, but I think of it favorably,” Anderson said, giving his positive vote.

With the present board members voting one against and two for, and the absent members split, no action could be taken.

Had all members been in attendance, the three positive votes from Davies, Anderson, and Stapf would have been enough to approve the kennel application.

However, because the vote of the present members was not in agreement, the application was tabled until the next meeting.

“I cannot predict what the vote would be next month,” Hart said, implying that the board members could veer from the vote they gave that evening.

“They seemed pretty set in their decisions,” Bachner said yesterday of the board members.

“I’m trying to stay positive,” she continued.

Bachner’s clients are currently boarding elsewhere, which is disheartening for Bachner both from a business standpoint, and as an animal lover.

“They’re like family to me,” she said of the dogs. “I really miss them.”

She is also concerned about dogs not doing well in different environments, as all dogs have their own personalities and may not adjust to a new situation well, she said.

Conditions on the application are to be discussed among the town, the applicant, and the representative of the neighbors before the November planning board meeting.

Other business

In other business, the planning board:

— Scheduled a public hearing in November for an application for a major subdivision at 22 Toby Lane, in which the applicant wants to divide his 11.8 acre parcel into three smaller parcels;

— Waived a public hearing for P.J. Hognestad’s application to construct a 40-by-120-foot storage building for trucks associated with the allowed uses of his parcel, which is over 21 acres at 198 New Scotland South Road. The board deemed that a public hearing would not be needed because no neighbors are close enough to object and the neighbors the board did speak with were not opposed to the new structure.

The board also discussed whether or not septic and water would be needed on the property, even though Hognestad emphasized that it is just his brother and himself on their businesses property, so there is no practical need for it. The board wasn’t sure if Albany County would have further requirements, and that will be looked into;

— Waived a public hearing for an application for Saber Technologies at 1891 New Scotland Road to remodel and add to the existing structure there. The presentation given by the company’s representative was very detailed, which pleased the board, and described an increase in previous area on the property with the exterior remodeling of the building and addition of four bays to the garage.

Parking would be moved around to make more green space, including places for trees.

In its condition for the approval, the board mandated that the trees added be of “standard street species”;

— Heard a permit renewal-request, for an addition to a residence at 355 Thatcher Park Road owned by Todd Crouse, which was granted;

— Heard a temporary use variance from the zoning board, in which it advised Jacob Constantine, who was not there, to seek water and septic approval from the county before beginning construction on a garage intended to have an apartment above it; and,

— Discussed a variance application submitted by Blackbird Prime Properties to split off 10 acres of woods from the manufactured home lot so it can be mortgaged off.