too big?

So, the basic argument is that 75 dogs is too many and I should be zoned commercial. My response: first of all, I only have that many maybe 10 days a year and don't really want that many. I offered to settle on  a lower number. The town attorney AGREED with my settlement offer. However, he did not agree because he accepted our offer but because he want to set a trap and get me before the planning board to ambush me.

In other words, bad faith negotiations. I offered to settle. The town attorney, Tal Rappleyea, engaged in bad faith negotiations and conspiracy to defraud. Now, the ZBA says I should go back to the planning board? Do you think I can realistically do that? If the planning board were a reasonable place, why did they not agree to my terms? Why didn't the planning board accept my settlement terms when their own attorney agreed to them?

To limit my operation to 1500 sf for no reason is tantamount to changing my business into a different business. If you told a restaurant that already was approved with a big kitchen that no, they have to be a lunch counter with only cold sandwiches, that would be to force them into a new business.

I already have a big space. My customers want a big space. That is the whole point of the operation. If you say I have to be in a small space, then you are taking away the kitchen of the restaurant after they already bought $25,000 in equipment, have been operating legally with no complaints for years, and have not violated any rules.

You're talking to a guy from Matamoros, Mexico and he says how terrible these drug gangs are, running the town. And then you say, why don't you file a complaint with the police? And he starts rolling on the floor laughing. File a complaint with the police! Ha! Ha!  Ha! Ha! They are the drug gang!

David R. Everett of Whiteman Osterman and Hanna is simply saying I should go back to the planning board and re-file my site plan review, everything will be fine. Back to the planning board! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!