Patchogue ZBA closes public hearing on Paws United move to Waverly Avenue, requests additional records

The Village of Patchogue Zoning Board of Appeals on Feb. 12 closed the public hearing on a special-permit application from Paws United to operate an animal rescue and training center at 173–175 Waverly Avenue, moving the application to the decision calendar and asking the applicant to supply additional records within about seven days.

The board said the decision will hinge on whether the proposed use will “prevent the orderly and reasonable use of adjacent property” and meet other special-permit criteria spelled out in the village code (code citation referenced in the hearing as 43566CD). The board’s chair warned the applicant that any future permit would be contingent on the operation’s actual effect on neighbors.

Supporters and volunteers described Paws United as a long-running rescue that operates more like a home than a kennel, emphasizing training, volunteer oversight and partnerships with the SPCA and county health agencies. Cholanda Lobello, vice president of Paws United, said volunteers are regularly on site and that the operation uses camera systems and staggered staffing to limit disruption. "The dogs have known that. They hear that alert go off," Lobello said, describing the shelter’s security sensors and the limited, short-lived barking when visitors arrive.

Opponents said the proposed site is too close to existing residences and raised concerns about noise, odors, rodents and property values. "Having an animal rescue in our backyards would lower our property values," said Linda Lockingtore, who identified herself as a lifelong village resident at 23 East Fourth Street and spoke against the application.

Applicant remarks and record details

Meredith, identified in the hearing as the applicant and operator of Paws United, told the board that the organization has operated in commercial and mixed-use areas and that the rescue is intentionally run "as close to a home environment as possible" rather than a traditional shelter. She said the operation currently houses 19 dogs on site and that cat counts fluctuate; she told the board she expected a configuration of roughly 30 cats after shifting some senior cats to foster homes, resulting in a total of about 49 animals if all were present at once. Meredith also said staffing typically includes multiple volunteers daily and that overnight presence is limited to occasional checks supported by cameras.

On waste and sanitation, Meredith said the rescue contracts with Winter Brothers for dumpster service and can schedule more frequent pickup or keep waste contained inside until collection. She told the board the organization has not had active health-department complaints at its Montauk Highway location and that several letters of support accompanied the application.

Public-health and regulatory notes

A letter read into the record from the Suffolk County Public Health Association stated the Department of Health had no active complaints or investigations against Paws United. Board members and commenters referenced Suffolk County animal-facility standards during the hearing; the applicant cited compliance steps including indoor housing configurations and enclosure sizes above a 4 ft by 6 ft minimum referenced during discussion.

Board action and next steps

Member Steven Stein moved to close the application hearing pending the applicant’s submission of records (admissions/adorption logs and comparable facility examples) and to move the matter to the decision calendar; the motion was seconded and carried on an affirmative board vote recorded as all in favor. The board asked the applicant to deliver the requested documentation and examples to the record in approximately seven days; once received the panel will take the matter up on the decision calendar.

Why it matters

If the board issues a special permit, the use would be allowed despite proximity to residences but remain subject to conditions and potential renewal periods (board members noted the village’s practice of issuing time-limited special permits). Neighbors and the applicant both said they want a workable arrangement; the board must weigh the code’s special-permit criteria (effect on adjacent properties, odors, traffic, public health and conservation of property values) and the evidence supplied by both sides before rendering a decision.

The board also recorded many written letters for and against the application, including submissions from Marion Tuck, Darren Cunningham, Deborah Alcantara, Adrian Abel, Dale and Erwin Zaretsky and others; several volunteers and former adopters spoke in favor during the public comment period.