cat house continued

Note:See previous article on this subject, in an earlier blog posting. I have not met this woman, however, I think she has more busy-bodies than helpers, it appears. I have written to the author of the following article in this newspaper and I am posting a copy here, along with a letter I received from Tom D, whose viewpoint needs to be shared. ******* Lauren, You published a Blog concerning the "Cat House" article in The Daily Local. There is another article today, with a comment from me. Phyllis Ruley runs a shelter, with medical help from the vet she works for. The SPCA has remarked about how her housing for the cats is the best they have seen. A nosey neighbor who lives over 600 feet away on a small horse farm, has taken it upon herself to shut Phyllis down, and the small minded township people are beating this thing to death. There is a lot of injustice being done, including a reporter who manipulates the words. I was hoping you have some recommendations. There is definitely meddling going on, as you reported in your comment. Regards, Tom Tom DiPasquale Diamond Tech Associates 610-666-0222 [email protected] [email protected] ******* Hi, I read a previous article and this one was also sent to me as a follow-up on the original article. Unlike some of the people quoted in the article, the welfare of the cats is my concern. I know that cats, themselves, are clean animals and easier to take care of due to their being easily litter-box trained. They can do well in an environment that we humans might not consider hospital-clean. As far as the garbage bags and other supposedly unsightly debris around the house, what ever happened to neighbors helpling this woman instead of complaining about her? When I was a single parent, my daughter and I neither one had the strength to lift heavy bags of garbage over our fence so we lined them up just inside the fence, one at a time, as they were ready. That way we didn't have as hard a time lifting them over the night before the garbage people came. We received a note from "five neighbors," which I will never forget. I will wonder for the rest of my life why they chose to be defensive instead of just helping us. I feel the same way about this cat-loving woman, though I admit not having actually visited her. Thanks, Lauren Merryfield, editor/publisher, CATLINES ******* http://www.dailylocal.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=16095229&BRD=1671&PAG=461&dept_id=17782&rfi=8 Daily Local News - News - 02/09/2006 - ‘Cat house’ zoning hearing turns testy ZWIRE1671/custlogoLG 02/09/2006 ‘Cat house’ zoning hearing turns testy By JOHN ROSSOMANDO , Staff Writer WEST NANTMEAL -- He could smell it from the street. Zoning Officer Russell Yerkes testified at a zoning hearing board session Tuesday that he could smell the odor of cat urine mixed with bleach outside Phyllis Ruley’s house even before he entered the property last October when he went to devliver a cease-and-desist order for operating her "cat rescue." Advertisement Click here to visit our site! Not only was the odor noticeable, he told the zoning board members, but he could clearly see the presence of animal feces in her yard as he approached the door. "The odors were of ammonia, which is what cat urine smells like, as well as bleach. There was a very strong odor of bleach coming from her house and coming across the property," Yerkes said. "I smelled it on several occasions throughout the summer." Yerkes also testified Ruley’s property was covered by debris, including animal fecal material, an unregistered van, an old refrigerator, animal kennels, trash bags, fencing and an old lawnmower, among other materials. The first night of Ruley’s appeal of the cease-and-desist order was marked by bickering between Yerkes and Ruley’s defense attorney, who asserted that the township was prosecuting her under the wrong ordinance, and that she should be allowed to keep her operation going. After numerous complaints from neighbors and other residents about conditions on the property, Yerkes ruled that she was operating an illegal kennel and ordered her to remove the cats and clean the property. Ruley was cited for keeping approximately 70 cats in her Manor Road home as part of her animal-rescue operation, connected with the Frazer Animal Hospital where she works, and for what the township sees as the poor upkeep of her property. Ruley appealed the cease-and-desist order; Tuesday’s three-hour hearing featured township witnesses and the beginning of Ruley’s defense. None of the between 20 and 30 people in the audience stated cases against Ruley. The zoning board deferred taking any action until at least Feb. 23, at which time it will rule whether to uphold the order, or whether to grant a special exception to allow Ruley to operate a kennel, which Ruley’s attorney, Edward J. Foley Jr., said he would seek if the body decided against his client. Foley vigorously argued against the township’s position that his client operates an illicit kennel from her township home, and he used every opportunity to attack the township witnesses’ credibility. The defense’s case against the accusation hinged around Foley’s contention that the relevant township ordinance is rooted in Pennsylvania dog law, which does not cover cats. He said that the ordinance should not apply because Ruley runs a "cat rescue" and because she does not run the operation for profit. Foley presented testimony from Dr. Jerry Godfrey, Ruley’s employer, that he provides veterinary care for the animals in her home; however, Godfrey admitted under cross-examination that her home was less than ideal for the animals. Board members ruled Godfrey’s testimony irrelevant as he described how "Help the Animals" -- Ruley’s rescue -- works in an effort to rebut township contentions she operates a kennel. They decided that part of his testimony had nothing to do with the zoning question at hand. "We are not interested in the welfare of the cats; this is a zoning matter at hand," said board solicitor Jon Malsnee. Yerkes testified he had been in contact with the Chester County SPCA, Chester County Health Department and the Pennsylvania SPCA regarding Ruley’s case. He said the Chester County Health Department had raised concerns about the presence of rats in Ruley’s trash. The department later cited her for the rodent problem. After his first inspection in October, Yerkes paid a follow-up visit to the property in November. "It appeared a kennel-use was still being operated. At that time, no odors were evident at the property line," he said. "All the items were still present and visible from the road, and trash bags in the rear yard were piled up and limed." He made a subsequent visit Monday, on the eve of the hearing, at which time he said conditions had deteriorated from those he had witnessed in October. Foley attempted to pick away at Yerkes’ evaluation of the zoning ordinances, attacking his credibility and calling his competence into question. For example, he asked whether he had received guidance from any of the supervisors and asked why Assistant Zoning Officer Andrea Hingley had not cited Ruley during her July visit. Yerkes said the animals were not his first concern during the July visit because he felt it was a Chester County SPCA matter. "I felt a kennel was being run there by the broad definition that was stated because it is being used as a rescue facility, boarding facility or however you want to put it," Yerkes said. Upon further questioning, Foley got Yerkes to admit that the township zoning ordinances do not regulate the number of animals a resident could keep in their home. "What you were left with was what was the zoning law of West Nantmeal Township," Foley said. "Would you agree that the West Nantmeal definition of a kennel is directed at dog law?" Yerkes said he was unfamiliar with the state’s dog law as it applied to the state definition of kennels. Foley also questioned him whether he used an "objective" criterion dating from 1968 for gauging the offensive odors coming from his client’s property as was mandated by the township ordinances. However, Yerkes said he was unaware of that provision of the township’s ordinance. "I just know what I smelled, and I did not perform any testing," Yerkes said. Yerkes defended his contention that Ruley’s establishment operates for compensation because it accepts donations. Ruley herself admitted this under cross-examination from township Solicitor Kristen Camp. Ruley said the money she receives from donors does not begin to cover the expenses for all of the animals in her care. When asked why she had not arranged for additional trash pickups, she said that she preferred to spend the money on the animals rather than pay to pick up an additional 20 bags of trash every week. To contact staff writer John Rossomando, send an e-mail to [email protected]. Merry Maids 610-380-7999 ©Daily Local News 2006 Daily Local News - News - 02/09/2006 - ‘Cat house’ zoning hearing turns testy ZWIRE1671/custlogoLG 02/09/2006 ‘Cat house’ zoning hearing turns testy By JOHN ROSSOMANDO , Staff Writer WEST NANTMEAL -- He could smell it from the street. Zoning Officer Russell Yerkes testified at a zoning hearing board session Tuesday that he could smell the odor of cat urine mixed with bleach outside Phyllis Ruley’s house even before he entered the property last October when he went to devliver a cease-and-desist order for operating her "cat rescue." Advertisement Click here to visit our site! Not only was the odor noticeable, he told the zoning board members, but he could clearly see the presence of animal feces in her yard as he approached the door. "The odors were of ammonia, which is what cat urine smells like, as well as bleach. There was a very strong odor of bleach coming from her house and coming across the property," Yerkes said. "I smelled it on several occasions throughout the summer." Yerkes also testified Ruley’s property was covered by debris, including animal fecal material, an unregistered van, an old refrigerator, animal kennels, trash bags, fencing and an old lawnmower, among other materials. The first night of Ruley’s appeal of the cease-and-desist order was marked by bickering between Yerkes and Ruley’s defense attorney, who asserted that the township was prosecuting her under the wrong ordinance, and that she should be allowed to keep her operation going. After numerous complaints from neighbors and other residents about conditions on the property, Yerkes ruled that she was operating an illegal kennel and ordered her to remove the cats and clean the property. Ruley was cited for keeping approximately 70 cats in her Manor Road home as part of her animal-rescue operation, connected with the Frazer Animal Hospital where she works, and for what the township sees as the poor upkeep of her property. Ruley appealed the cease-and-desist order; Tuesday’s three-hour hearing featured township witnesses and the beginning of Ruley’s defense. None of the between 20 and 30 people in the audience stated cases against Ruley. The zoning board deferred taking any action until at least Feb. 23, at which time it will rule whether to uphold the order, or whether to grant a special exception to allow Ruley to operate a kennel, which Ruley’s attorney, Edward J. Foley Jr., said he would seek if the body decided against his client. Foley vigorously argued against the township’s position that his client operates an illicit kennel from her township home, and he used every opportunity to attack the township witnesses’ credibility. The defense’s case against the accusation hinged around Foley’s contention that the relevant township ordinance is rooted in Pennsylvania dog law, which does not cover cats. He said that the ordinance should not apply because Ruley runs a "cat rescue" and because she does not run the operation for profit. Foley presented testimony from Dr. Jerry Godfrey, Ruley’s employer, that he provides veterinary care for the animals in her home; however, Godfrey admitted under cross-examination that her home was less than ideal for the animals. Board members ruled Godfrey’s testimony irrelevant as he described how "Help the Animals" -- Ruley’s rescue -- works in an effort to rebut township contentions she operates a kennel. They decided that part of his testimony had nothing to do with the zoning question at hand. "We are not interested in the welfare of the cats; this is a zoning matter at hand," said board solicitor Jon Malsnee. Yerkes testified he had been in contact with the Chester County SPCA, Chester County Health Department and the Pennsylvania SPCA regarding Ruley’s case. He said the Chester County Health Department had raised concerns about the presence of rats in Ruley’s trash. The department later cited her for the rodent problem. After his first inspection in October, Yerkes paid a follow-up visit to the property in November. "It appeared a kennel-use was still being operated. At that time, no odors were evident at the property line," he said. "All the items were still present and visible from the road, and trash bags in the rear yard were piled up and limed." He made a subsequent visit Monday, on the eve of the hearing, at which time he said conditions had deteriorated from those he had witnessed in October. Foley attempted to pick away at Yerkes’ evaluation of the zoning ordinances, attacking his credibility and calling his competence into question. For example, he asked whether he had received guidance from any of the supervisors and asked why Assistant Zoning Officer Andrea Hingley had not cited Ruley during her July visit. Yerkes said the animals were not his first concern during the July visit because he felt it was a Chester County SPCA matter. "I felt a kennel was being run there by the broad definition that was stated because it is being used as a rescue facility, boarding facility or however you want to put it," Yerkes said. Upon further questioning, Foley got Yerkes to admit that the township zoning ordinances do not regulate the number of animals a resident could keep in their home. "What you were left with was what was the zoning law of West Nantmeal Township," Foley said. "Would you agree that the West Nantmeal definition of a kennel is directed at dog law?" Yerkes said he was unfamiliar with the state’s dog law as it applied to the state definition of kennels. Foley also questioned him whether he used an "objective" criterion dating from 1968 for gauging the offensive odors coming from his client’s property as was mandated by the township ordinances. However, Yerkes said he was unaware of that provision of the township’s ordinance. "I just know what I smelled, and I did not perform any testing," Yerkes said. Yerkes defended his contention that Ruley’s establishment operates for compensation because it accepts donations. Ruley herself admitted this under cross-examination from township Solicitor Kristen Camp. Ruley said the money she receives from donors does not begin to cover the expenses for all of the animals in her care. When asked why she had not arranged for additional trash pickups, she said that she preferred to spend the money on the animals rather than pay to pick up an additional 20 bags of trash every week. To contact staff writer John Rossomando, send an e-mail to [email protected]. Merry Maids 610-380-7999 ©Daily Local News 2006