North Grandview Dog Park Relocation~~
/~~
Subject: North Grandview Dog Park Relocation Proposal.
Dear Mayor, Council members, Mr. Spence and Mr. Van Milligen:
We (Tom& Laura Richard ,Roger 8~ Patti Ruden, and Darlene Richard.)
the residents of lower aspen Ct. request that the city council approve the
proposal that was agreed to at the Park and recreation Commission Meeting
on September 12, 2006. To relocate the existing dog park on north Grandview
ave. (see a copy of those minutE~ below on page 4, highlighted in yellow.)
This park has been a life changing experience for all of us, unfortunately not for
the better. We are tired of having to put up with the sound of barking dogs
infiltrating everything we do on our property and inside every room in our
homes. The barking is easily heard with our windows closed. If one doesn't like
the way something looks they can close their eyes or turn their head. But if you
don't like the way something sounds you can't escape it. The ear never closes.
When a problem like this enters your life you can't compartmentalize it to just
your home life. It's on your mind wherever you go.
There are other people in the neighborhood that support our position that live
450 ft. From the park. They state that at times it is impossible for them to sit on
their decks because of the barking. Imagine what it sounds like to us a mere 45
ft. from the park.
We don't think the parks commission realized how sound travels in this valley.
It's a natural amphitheater. The barking bounces off the bluffs creating an echo
that magnifies it. The sound is worse on our properties than it is in the park.
Mr. Spence agrees it is a problem as evidenced by his response to this a-mail
sent to him by Mr. Tom Richard in Dec. 2006.
Hey Gil
Just thought I would check in and see if there is any new updates on
the relocating of the dog park. With the nice weather of late and
especially around Thanksgiving the noise level is up with the leaves
down even with the windows closed. But this is tolerably as long as you
are truly going to move it someday.(sooner than later) Here is an
m unofficial stat by me 20 dogs a day times 365 days a year equals 7300
L~ iv "j Q barking dogs per year in my back yard. Not a desirable noise to
~ ~~ ~ listen to.
i%3 =;-~ crBut like I said I can put up with it if I know plans are in the works
U ~ ,J for relocation. I don't like it when I have to hope for bad weather.
~` Q ~,C~Hope things are well for you and your family. Keep in touch. Happy
o U holidays
Thank You
Thomas J Richard
_1_
From: "Gil Spence" <gspence@cityofdubuque.org>
To: "Thomas Richard" <tj_richard@msn.com>
Subject: Re: Dog Park (Gil Spence )
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 14:28:55 -0600
Tom:
I have been communicating with Roger, he has suggested a few places
that I am looking into. I am making every effort to address this issue
but it will not be easy and may not be as quick as we both hope. I can
honestly say that there is not an issue I think about more then this
one. I do agree that it is a problem that needs to be taken care of.
Happy Holidays to you and your family.
Gil
Mr. Spence has done everything he can think of to correct this problem short of
closing the park. Nothing has worked. He had signs posted in the park
informing the visitors that the noise was bouncing off the bluffs and disturbing
the local residents. Those signs were torn down soon after installation.
This park is a mere 45 ft. from our property. Simply reducing the amount of
visitors to the park will not solve this problem. You will be receiving videos shot
from our kitchen windows and decks that prove that just three or four dogs
barking causes a major disturbance. As you can see in the nuisance case
below. The court decided "it is the disturbance and not the number of dogs to
which the test must be applied."
Adams v Hamilton Carhartt Overall Co, 293 Ky 443; 169 SW2d 294 (2 March 1943)
(re dog barking noise, "... a nuisance is anything which annoys or disturbs the
free use of one's property, or which renders its ordinary use of physical
occupation uncomfortable." "It is the disturbance and not the number of dogs
[decibels /chemicals] to which the test must be applied." "That relief is to have
the nuisance abated.")
On Mr. Rudens first visit to Mr. Spence's office. Mr. Spence said: "We were told
when the dogs were together there would be no barking. We were told the
leaves would block the noise." So it sounds like the subject of noise was a
concern to Mr. Spence. It is regrettable that the lower aspen ct. residents were
not notified about the construction of this park so that they could defend their
property rights.
_~_
Below are the recommendations of the peninsula humane society when
planning to build a dog park.
``~ I'ENINtit'L_'1IIt:11I:1NF. ~()CIET~' ~ 4PC_~
~- ,~4,* Resource Librar
...1s ~~ ~_ 1, Y
Solicit the input and seek the approval of significant organizations in
your community. Talk with the proposed park's neighbors before talking to
city hall. "As soon as someone puts up a serious red flag, pay attention to
it," advises Terry Anderlini. "Don't ignore or fight it; try to come up with a
solution. If it really is impossible to resolve, at least you'll know what you are
up against."
Be prepared to address a range of concerns, including the risk for dog
fights, dog bites, noise level, parking and traffic needs, liability issues and
maintenance. Explain why some of these are nonissues and have a plan to
address those, like traffic and noise that are legitimate.
:~
When the City of Chapel Hill was considering sites for a dog park. They
decided to notify all property owners in writing that owned property within 1,000
ft. of the proposed sites. Remember, We live a mere 45 ft. from this park.
MEMORANDUM AGENDA #4e
TO: Mayor and Town Council
FROM: W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager
SUBJECT: Report on Potential Locations of Dog Parks
DATE: January 22, 2001
This report updates the Council on the Dog Park Committee's progress, includes the
Dog Park Committee's recommended sites for consideration, the Manager's review of
potential sites, and recommends future steps for potentially developing one or more
dog parks in Chapel Hill.
The attached resolution would authorize the Manager to notify persons who own
property within 1,000 feet of the potential sites listed in this report of the February 12,
2001 public forum
_~..
PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
4:30 p.m., Snack Bar, Bunker Hill Golf Course
PRESENT: Tom Blocklinger, Kim Daykin, Chuck Duggan, Gary Harjehausen, Paul
Hoffmann and Karen Lyness
ABSENT: Evelyn Nadeau
OTHERS: Staff present: Gil Spence, Pat Prevenas, Bob Fritsch and Eileen Trimble
MINUTES It was moved by Blocklinger, seconded by Duggan, to approve the minutes of
APPROVED; the August 8, 2006 meeting. The motion passed unanimously.
VOTE:
APPROVE Leisure Services Manager Gil Spence explained that the rental agreement was
NEIGHBORHOOD based on the same one as the Comiskey Center. This agreement would be for
RESOURCE outside group(s) wanting to have a party, church group, et cetera. There will
CENTER USAGE be a supervisor on site at all times when the center is in use.
AGREEMENT;
VOTE: It was moved ~ Harjehausen, seconded by Lyness, to approve the
Neighborhood Resource Center Rental Agreement as presented ~ staff. The
motion ap ssed unanimously.
DISCUSSION ON Three residents of Aspen Court were present at the meeting to discuss the
NOISE PROBLEM problem with barking dogs in the pet park on Grandview Avenue -Tom
AT PET PARK; Richard, 1021 Aspen Court, Darlene Richard, 1019 Aspen Court and Roger
RECEIVE AND Ruden, 1020 Aspen Court.
FILE LETTER
FROM ROGER It was moved by Daykin, seconded by Blocklinger, to receive and file the letter
AND PATTI from Roger and Patti Ruden regarding noise problem from the Pet Park. The
RUDEN; VOTE: motion passed unanimously.
Mr. Ruden explained that the noise from the barking dogs in the pet park is a
real problem for the residents on Aspen Court; he has not checked with any
other residents of the area. They cannot sit out on their decks because of the
loud and constant barking; they have to go in the house and shut the windows
and can still hear the barking. He said time of day is not necessarily the issue,
the location of the park is. The sound travels and bounces off the bluffs and is
extremely loud. Attempts to help the situation by putting up signs about
keeping dogs quiet has not helped; backing opening time up to 8:00 a.m. has
helped slightly, but there is still a major problem.
L~_
The relocation of dog parks is not unprecedented.
Note: The following two dog parks that were relocated. The first one in Arlington
Virginia was relocated because it was mistakenly located so close to an historic
site that it impeded the historic experience for visitors.
The second one in Beacon Hill Boston was relocated due to the location in
relation to popularity and demand.
.s
News Releases __~~~~
~JPrinter Friendly Version
For Immediate Release
See also:
Arlington Insider Saturday, June 26, 2004
Update Arlington
Weather Info Contact: Diana Sun 703-228-3247 (voice), 703-228-4611 (TTY)
The Citizen
Subscribe to E-Mail:
Subscribe to North Arlington Dog Park Relocation .Approved
Receive News
Releases Via E-
ntail NOTE TO MEDIA: Woof! Arlington today approved the
Un-Subscribe relocation of a dog park. Sketches and the full report are
from E-Mail List available on the Arlington website.
Arlington's Historic Civil War-era Fort Ethan Allen
Preserved
ARLINGTON, Va., June 26, 2004 -It's been said that "every
dog has its day," but not too many dogs have their day at a
County Board meeting. That changed today when the Arlington
County Board approved a newly relocated park for the
community and its canine residents.
~e Fort Ethan Allen Community Canine Area will be relocated
a fenced site in Fort Ethan Allen Park adjacent to the
adison Community Center, located at 3829 N. Stafford Street,
the northernmost comer of Arlington. 1 ne .Jog park was
"We're pleased to be able to protect our historic: Fort and give
Arlington's dogs a place to run and play," said County Board
Chair Barbara A. Favola. "We are grateful to thc; Task Force,
residents, and County staff who participated in Ilhis extensive
and inclusive process."
Board appointed the Fort Ethan Allen Comimunity Car
~ Relocation Task Force in January 2004. The Task Fc
comprised of a variety of stakeholders, including civic
~ciation representatives, dog park user grouips, and Cc
mission representatives. Over the next five months, th
;Force held ten meetings [open to the public], a Public
The County Board approved the Task Force's recommended
site, which is located in Fort Ethan Allen Park adjacent to the pl.
The Official Date and Time of this Release is: 6/26/2004 2:06:27
PM
~.
E-mail: http //www arlingtonva us/Scripts/feedback form asp~To=publicaffairsCcilarlingtonva us
Arlington County Public Affairs Division
2100 Clarendon Blvd, Suite 310
Arlington, VA 22201
(703) 228-3969
LOWER ALLEN DOG PARK
DIRECTIONS to Lower Allen Community Park, home of the Doggie Dugout!
from Representative Jerry Nailor, a dog park has been built at Lower Allen Community Park
built at Beacon Hill ti1~e dark ~i~as an insta3ti success anti required a mare suitable ft~catiun. A
enclosed with a 5-foot high chain link fence allows dogs to run and play off a leash. The park
public and available during regular park hours (dawn to dusk.
tiot~ to t?~e p~larit~ and demand. The Board of Commissioners made a decision at their 11/24/03
.tlarly scheduled meeting to relocate the dog park at Beacon Hill to the Community Park (LACP) at
5 Lisburn Road. This park, if you are not familiar with it, is 110 acres and already a very popular park
vilions and the "Barn" available for rent, several athletic fields and beautifully bordered by the Yellow
eches Creek). There is also a pond, although well hidden if you're not familiar with the park, and the
park will be located next to the pond. There is also an established parking lot, which does get plowed
he winter once the township roads are cleared (the parking lot at Beacon Hill would not have received
same as it is gravel and grass). This relocation actually resulted in a slightly larger park, with small
large dog areas and offer a different atmosphere with a pond, the creek, and nature trails to walk (of
rse with your dog on a leash).
,~
If you've ever had something precious taken from you, you know
that sick feeling you get in the pit of your stomach when you
realize what you've lost. That's the feeling we get every time we
hear the barking dogs and realize we can no longer fully enjoy our
property.
When chronic noise rings throughout your home, as it does with a
barking dog, it is even more upsetting than it would be if the same
noise occurred in a different setting, because your home is your
place of refuge. It is where you go to get away from the relentless
hammering of the outside world. If you cannot find refuge in your
own home, then where are you to go?
Ordinances and standards are adopted to protect the health, the
safety, the well-being, the public good- and that includes every
individual who is affected by this dog park.
The following is city of Dubupue code that supports our position.
City code
NOISE ORDINANCE
(Hours of operation)
Animals and fowl: The keeping of, upon any premises, owned, controlled or occupied by any
person, any animal or fowl which, by sound or cry, shall cause annoyance or discomfort to a
person of normal sensibilities is prohibited
Sec. 7-18. Nuisance:
It shall be unlawful for any owner or keeper to permit a dog or cat to commit a nuisance. (1976 Code, § 7-
18; Ord. 60-0 l , § 1, 10-1-2001)
d
.~~ ,.
Sec. 23-43. Public Nuisances Prohibited; Authority To Abate:
(a) The creation, maintenance, or continuation of a public nuisance is hereby declared unlawful
and is prohibited.
(b) The City Manager is authorized to abate or cause to be abated public nuisances in any
manner authorized by law, including, but not limited to, Chapter 1, Article II of this Code.
(Ord. 28-98, § 1, 5-4-1998)
Sec. 23-45. Emergency Abatement Procedure:
When the City Manager determines that a public nuisance exists and that such public nuisance constitutes
an imminent and compelling danger to the health, safety or welfare of persons or property, the City
Manager is authorized to abate or cause to be abated the public nuisance without prior notice to the
owner. The costs of such action may be assessed against the property after notice to the property owner
and hearing. (Ord. 28-98, § 1, 5-4-1998)
The following is case law that supports our position
Premise 1 b: In Iowa, the right to maintain a nuisance is
recognized as an .non-trespassory. easement.
p. 316
Premise 2b. A property owners right to establish or defeat
easements is protected by the just compensation
clauses of our constitutions.
p. 316
Premise 2c: A constitutionally cognizable .per se taking. of that
protected interest occurs if a .physical invasion. of
the affected property is permitted.
p. 317
Premise 2d: Non-trespassory invasions satisfy the analytical
requirement fora .physical invasion. when they
interfere with the owners .use and enjoyment.
p. 318
Conclusion Because a nuisance is by essence an interference
with the right of .use and enjoyment,. a statutory
grant of authority to maintain a nuisance satisfies the
.physical invasion. test for . per se takings..
p. 320
In the full opinion, there are no missing links in this chain.
,. 9' --
~~1~ '~.
~~
~~
North Grandview Dog Park Videos:
Dear city council members, Mayor, Mr. Spence, and Mr.
Van Milligan:
The residents of lower aspen ct. ask that you please view
the enclosed videos of the north Grandview dog park.
There are five video clips on this cd. Video # 1- #2 and #3
three were taken from Mr. Tom Richards's deck. He and
his family live at 1021 aspen ct. Video #4 and #5 were
taken from Mr. Roger Ruden's open kitchen window. He
and his wife live at 1020 Aspen Ct.
You will see in these videos that just a hand full of dogs
using this park causes a major disturbance. We do not
believe that just opening another park will alleviate this
problem. What you see in these videos will continue as
long as there are dogs present. This park is just to close to
our living area. That is why we are asking that this park be
relocated as soon as possible to prevent further injury to us.
Sincerely,
tai `a~~ngnQ
a~!~~Q ~~'~'~!~ ~~!~ The residents of lower Aspen Ct.
oZ ~z Nd +~- ~d~ ~o
Q~/11~J~~1
Dictionary, 5th Ed., Nuisance, p.961.
This Courts conclusion that establishment of the right to maintain a nuisance
is the equivalent of granting an easement over affected properties is not clearly
erroneous. Other courts agree that the imposition of a nuisance is an easement.
IV. Whether there must be a .trespassory. invasion.
V. Case law fully supports this Courts conclusion that an actual .physical
taking or touching. is not required in a .taking by nuisance.
case.
This Court has observed the distinction between nuisance and trespass
As distinguished from trespass, which is an actionable invasion
of interests in the exclusive possession of land, a private nuisance is
an actionable invasion of interests in the use and enjoyment of land.
Trespass comprehends an actual physical invasion by tangible
matter. An invasion which constitutes a nuisance is usually by
intangible substances, such as noises or odors.
s If we accept, as we must upon established principles of the law of servitudes, the validity of the
propositions that a noise can be a nuisance; that a nuisance can give rise to an easement; and that a noise
coming straight down from above one's land can ripen into a taking if it is persistent enough and
aggravated enough, then logically the same kind and degree of interference with the use and enjoyment of
one's land can also be a taking even though the noise vector may come from some direction other than
the perpendicular
When the government physically takes possession of an interest
in property for some public purpose, it has a categorical duty to
compensate the former owner, [citation omttedJ, regardless of whether
the interest that is taken constitutes an entire parcel or merely a part
thereof.
In Ryan, we also distinguished between the concepts of "nuisance" and "negligence."
Negligence is a type of liability-forming conduct, for example, a failure to act reasonably
to prevent harm. Id. In contrast, nuisance is aliability-producing condition. Id. Negligence
may or may not accompany a nuisance; negligence, however, is not an essential element of
nuisance. Id. If the condition constituting the nuisance exists, the person responsible for it
is liable for resulting damages to others even though the person acted reasonably to
prevent or minimize the deleterious effect of t11e nuisance.
(" [A] taking occurs whenever government acts in such a
way as substantially to deprive an owner of the useful possession of that which he owns,
either by repeated trespasses or by repeated nontrespassory invasions called 'nuisance."').
The text of the Fifth Amendment itself provides a basis for drawing
a distinction between physical takings and regulatory takings. Its
plain language requires the payment of compensation whenever the
government acquires private property for a public purpose, whether
the acquisition is the result of a condemnation proceeding or a
physical appropriation. But the Constitution contains no comparable
reference to regulations that prohibit a property owner from making
certain uses of her private property...
~l ~
The underlying principle here is that the government has no Section 895C cmt. a (1979)
("whenever, in the exercise of a
governmental function, a municipality can be found to have created or
maintained a nuisance, either public or private, there is no immunity");
W. Page Keeton, et al., Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts
Section 131, at 1054 (5th ed.1984) (origin of exception is that "a
nuisance is often equivalent to a taking of land, or at least an
easement").
immunity from
claims that it has exceeded its constitutional powers under the .Just Compensation.
clauses.
ARTICLE I. BILL OF RIGHTS.
Rights of persons. SECTION 1. All
men are, by nature, free and equal, and
have certain inalienable rights .
among which are those of enjoying
and defending life and liberty,
acquiring, possessing and protecting
property, and pursuing and obtaining
safety and happiness.
The .rights of defending life and liberty. and .protecting
property,. set forth in this section as natural rights, are not taken away
when men associate themselves into governmental organizations.
The rights remain unimpaired.the method of protecting them only
being changed. In a state of nature, man must depend upon his
physical prowess to protect his rights.under constitutional
government he depends upon the laws as administered by the courts of
justice.
.A fact finder uses the normal person standard to determine whether a nuisance
involving personal discomfort or annoyance is significant enough to constitute
a nuisance.. Weinhold, 555 N.W.2d at 459, citing Patz v. Farmegg Prods.,.(w)hatever is
injurious to health, indecent, or unreasonably offensive to the
senses, or an obstruction to the free use of property, so as essentially to
unreasonably interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property, is a
nuisance.. Iowa Code Section 657.1 .
Adams v Hamilton Carhartt Overall Co, 293 Ky 443; 169 SW2d 294 (2 March 1943) (re dog barking
noise, "... a nuisance is anything which annoys or disturbs the free use of one's property, or which
renders its ordinary use of physical occupation uncomfortable." "It is the disturbance and not the
number of dogs [decibels /chemicals] to which the test must be applied." "That relief is to have the
nuisance abated.")
In closing we would like to thank you for taking the time to review
this proposal.
Roger, Patti, Tom, Laura, and Darlene.
//
-,~
RICHARD.
THOMAS
& LAURA ~
}
s '~~
;~<.
~1
__
_ -- 'QSPFN
\T
1
~. +~b ~ i
:»°
~y/ y/U/o~
Yage 1 of 1
Jeanne Schneider - Re: Emailing: Glory 001
From: Mike Van Milligen
To: Welu, Thomas &Cinda
Date: 04/16/2007 10:56 AM
Subject: Re: Emailing: Glory 001
CC: Schneider, Jeanne
Thank you, I will forward this to City Clerk Jeanne Schneider.
Michael C. Van Milligen
Dubuque City Manager
50 West 13th Street
Dubuque, Iowa 52001
Telephone: 563-589-4110
Fax: 563-589-4149
»> "Thomas &Cinda Welu" <tcwelu@mchsi.com> 4/15/2007 1:59 PM »>
To our dog-loving City Manager & Council Members:
Please don't close my new pet park. It's among my top choices of favorite community places to go. When Cinda
yells, "Let's go to Glory's Park!", you should see my tail go!
I am learning how to get along so much better with all types of dogs from all parts of Dubuque. My owner and I
really cherish the few green spaces left in our fair city to roam off a leash. The sunshine and fresh air are good
for me. We always pickup after ourselves and others. I am a doggone good dog who gives back so much while
only asking for so little.
It really makes my day.
So, please don't take it away.
I am a terrier, not a terror!
Glory
(Pet to Tom &Cinda Welu)
2609 Broadway St.
Dubuque, Iowa
557-7458
tcwelu@mchsi.com
The message is ready to be sent with the following file or link attachments:
Glory 001
file://C:\Documents and Settings\jschneid\Local Settings\Temp\XPgrpwise14623566FDB... 04/16/2007