Arbor Dog Daycare denied permission to expand by Ann Arbor Planning Commission
The owners of Arbor Dog Daycare are contemplating their next steps after the Ann Arbor Planning Commission denied allowing the business to expand Tuesday night.
By a 4-4 split vote early in the meeting, the commission rejected the company's request for a special use permit to expand into warehouse space adjacent to the existing daycare at 2856 S. Main St., about a half-block north of Eisenhower.
Diane Giannola was one of four Ann Arbor Planning Commission members who voted against the Arbor Dog Daycare expansion on Tuesday. Commissioners said they thought noise problems would increase if more dogs were allowed onsite.
Ryan J. Stanton | AnnArbor.com
Husband and wife Jon and Margaret Svoboda, who have been at their current location for the last four years, had hoped to increase the floor area from 3,200 square feet to 8,800 square feet, add five parking spaces, extend the hours of operation, and allow up to 125 dogs onsite — five times the number of canine clients currently allowed.
"I love dogs, but yapping dogs make me crazy," Commissioner Jean Carlberg said before voting no with three other commissioners: Diane Giannola, Kirk Westphal and Bonnie Bona.
Giannola said she was persuaded by noise complaints from neighbors. Though only one spoke in opposition Tuesday night, she said she read at least a few letters from residents who had concerns about the expansion and several spoke out at a previous hearing in December.
"It's hard to say that adding that many more dogs isn't going to increase the noise level. There would be more barking," she said. "And barking is (more of a nuisance) than just street noise."
A second vote was taken later in the meeting after Commissioner Evan Pratt showed up. He supported the expansion, making the vote 5-4 in favor, but it still fell short of the six votes needed.
"It's extremely regrettable, as we've done everything in our power," said Jon Svoboda, noting that his company has met with neighboring residents and thought they had worked out all concerns, including noise. "We have hundreds of signatures in support, tens of e-mails that came into the city. We've made sure that we did everything possible to comply."
Out of the hundreds of residents who live nearby, Svoboda said, it's regrettable that the complaints of a few will stop the business from being able to grow and hire additional staff.
Commissioners specifically expressed concerns about noise coming from an existing "dog run" area located on the property, where dogs are allowed to run around outside and go to the bathroom. Carlberg wondered if there was a different location for the dog run, so that it would be less of a nuisance to neighbors, or a way to encase it in soundproof material.
Svoboda said he didn't think those options were feasible and noted that the expansion proposal doesn't include changing the dog run. He said it's currently 3,200 square feet and no more than 25 dogs at a time use the dog run — and those numbers would stay the same.
"We have dogs throughout the day at that 25 limit," he said. "We told folks we would not expand above that 25 limit. We're not proposing to change anything that already exists outside, but we've been voted down for what exists, which is compliant as far as I can tell."
Svoboda said a sound study showed that the dog run actually is quieter than passing cars on the street. He also said he has talked with the president of the Balmoral Park Condos Association, where some of the residents with concerns live, and he believes many of the complaints about barking dogs actually are because of dogs within the complex.
Bona said she would like to encourage businesses in Ann Arbor to grow, but she couldn't see any way to approve the project because of the concerns that were raised. If residents already are complaining about barking dogs at the facility as it now exists, she said, expanding it could potentially turn a small problem into a bigger problem.
She concluded that it might not be the best location for a dog daycare, and that the owners will have to find somewhere else to expand their business.
The owners of Arbor Dog Daycare say they're turning customers away due to capacity. The business is benefitting from the national uptick in pet-related spending, which will grow to $47.7 billion this year, according to projections.
"We're in a situation where I don't know how we can continue to do business where we are," Jon Svoboda said after Tuesday's meeting. "I don't know where we go from here."
Ryan J. Stanton covers government and politics for AnnArbor.com. Reach him at ryanstanton@annarbor.com or 734-623-2529.
Comments
Jennie McAlpine
Thu, Sep 30, 2010 : 12:43 p.m.
Dear Planning Commission members - I want to recommend a unanimous vote to approve the Ann Arbor Dog Day Care expansion project. I have been a customer at the facility in the past and believe that the Svoboda's have done everything in their power to run a high quality, clean and quiet pet care facility. They have made every effort to address the worry about increased noise by putting in place policies for numbers of animals outside at any given time that will keep noise levels well withing zoning requirements. In my experience, whenever there is a requested change in an area, especially when it is about caring for people or animals, there is often a very vocal minority that is against it. This goes for child care, elder care, care for people with disabilities or, yes, pet care in any neighborhood anywhere. But once those entities are operating, with all kinds of legal, safety, program quality and privacy enhancements in place, they add a great deal to the surrounding community. The Svoboda's services are obviously wanted, or they would not be in a position to expand. They are obviously successful in this particular area, have room to expand and, with the exception of a few complaints, have strong support for expansion. I just want to urge the committee to look at the situation logically and decide in the best interests of the Ann Arbor community as a whole, rather than respond to emotional issues of the moment. I predict that, if this expansion is granted, the people who are worried about the noise increase will not notice any change and their fears will go away with time. The Svoboda's have been and will continue to be good neighbors and responsible business owners. Please give them a chance to expand their business.
Joey
Sat, Sep 25, 2010 : 12:53 p.m.
I live near here and I have never heard dogs barking, however, the real noise complaints come from the child daycare across the street from the dog daycare...they allow the children outside to scream as loud as possible and they keep me awake when I try to sleep in the morning...I wonder if I should call the police to report a noise complaint? Every morning I hope for rain to keep those kids inside the building.
Go Blue
Fri, Sep 24, 2010 : 1:55 p.m.
It is obvious the planning commission needed to perform far more due diligence than they could be bothered with. So, yet another business wises up, moves out of the city and takes their business elsewhere, just as over taxed homeowners are doing. Those in governing positions just have no clue of the harsh realities out there and continue to take and take. And here's the joke - wait until the commission changes and go back. As with everything else, you don't like the results of something - redial and try the next person and often you get someone more responsive. Unfortunately, this one is not quite that simple - it will take a change of regime. By then the business will probably have gone elsewhere and is proving to be a beneficial business to a township or another city.
pbehjatnia
Fri, Sep 24, 2010 : 12:48 p.m.
Council who drive money out of this town deserve a good public verbal bashing.
Alfie
Fri, Sep 24, 2010 : 8:41 a.m.
It is interesting to see all the outrage over this decision, when the same process with a different project played out a couple months ago at City Council with the Heritage Row project. That project was defeated at City Council even though a MAJORITY of Council members AND Planning Commissioners voted for it. WHY? becuase of a couple of neighbors objections. These neighbors(and a couple slum lords fearing competition) help spread fear to defeat a project based on their own self-interests, they were not looking out for the City as a whole. The taxes and benefits that project would have brought to the WHOLE city far outweighed the benefits of the doggie daycare expansion. Having said that, both projects should have been approved in my opinion, but that's democracy and if we dont like it we can take actions to change the process. One last thing, please do not bash Commission members without knowing the whole story. So many people are bashing Jean Carlberg based on ONE quote form the entire 2 hour discussion. Jean is very knowledgable and a dedicated public servant and has been for many many years. I can't believe how ignorant some people can be without even knowing the whole story. I am willing to bet the vast majority of posters bashing commission members were not at the meeting and only read the story above. There was more discussion than that one quote people! The Doggie Day care expansion project is dead for now, it cannot proceed to Council as Planning Commission is the approving body on this one.
Go Blue
Thu, Sep 23, 2010 : 8 p.m.
Nice, very nice decision - N O T. I really can't stand (and all you out there fill in the blank) so that means I have the right to deny a request that will B E N E F I T so many others in various ways (the dogs that are better off with a person during the day while it's owner is away, more jobs, M O R E T A X D O L L A R S for the city) and one person's PERSONAL prejudices rule? What do you do when a decision is made based on personal prejudice? You fight it. Make those calls in droves to the Planning Commission, Mayor, etc. and then follow that up with emails and then do it again. They are supposed to represent us not their own preferences. And after you've all done the calling and emailing, remember the most important of all - VOTE. How will they know the reality and impact of their decision if those that disagree do nothing except grumble about it? And make it clear that personal preferences and prejudices have no place in their position and especially in good ol' A2 - like the recent vote to make a position known just last week.
ypsicat
Thu, Sep 23, 2010 : 5:06 p.m.
"Commissioners specifically expressed concerns about noise coming from an existing "dog run" area located on the property, where dogs are allowed to run around outside and go to the bathroom." Goggies don't "go to the bathroom." They poop and pee on the ground outside (hopefully). Surely you can come up with a more accurate euphemism. Besides that, I hope the business owners win their appeal. Good luck!
LBH
Thu, Sep 23, 2010 : 3:30 p.m.
@snapshot - this isn't about "dog's rights" vs. "human's rights", it's about business owners who did their best to talk to neighbors and work with them. And it is about planning commission people who probably did no more homework on this than to say - 'I hate yappy dogs' so I'm voting no. It sounds like what you are saying is that if one person complains, no plans should ever move forward. That is astoundingly short sighted and unreasonable. What about all the other people who either don't mind or actually use the business, who will now be inconvenienced by having to drive further (causing more air pollution) with their animals. Why don't they count?
AlwaysLate
Thu, Sep 23, 2010 : 9:12 a.m.
I'm a little confused. A quick Mapquest and Google Earth search of "2856 S. Main Street" shows that the location of this business is completely surrounded by other businesses...not residences. If there are no residents presentwhos really complainingthe surrounding businesses?
cjk
Thu, Sep 23, 2010 : 7:58 a.m.
If anything, I would think dogs who spend time at a daycare are far less likely to bark incessantly than those left alone all day. If you want to reduce barking, then promoting this business seems the better decision.
treetowntenor
Thu, Sep 23, 2010 : 7:52 a.m.
The planning commission is appointed by the Mayor and approved by the Council, according to their bylaws. May our votes this November reflect that fact. I hope the Svobodas bring this before the city council; I will be watching the results *very* carefully. Planning commission decisions, and council rubber-stamping of same, have resulted in lawsuits against Ann Arbor. Let's hope the Mayor, Council and Planning Commission don't end up wasting our money by having to defend against another one.
ez12c
Thu, Sep 23, 2010 : 7 a.m.
I'd say move the business to Pittsfield but they're governing body is also anti-growth.
pbehjatnia
Thu, Sep 23, 2010 : 6:23 a.m.
Yay! Yet another dumb decision by AA council! Yay! Another business is probably going to leave town! Yay! One more vacant (big) space! Yay! One more really great service business gone for good from the City of Ann Arbor! Yay! City Council! Oh, btw- I would rather listen to a bunch of yapping dogs any day over a whining fool who can't seem to recall that she is on council for the public service and not her own limited views.
johnnya2
Wed, Sep 22, 2010 : 10 p.m.
I guess the city is run similar to the senate. You need a 66% vote to win any change now? They voted FOR the proposal, but not by ENOUGH. To me that is like saying a football team does not win unless they cover the point spread.
AA
Wed, Sep 22, 2010 : 8:32 p.m.
Very Good Decision. They need a more rural location.
thomas h blaske
Wed, Sep 22, 2010 : 8:28 p.m.
Hang in there Svoboda's! You are right. Go to Council. We do not elect the Planning Commission, but we do the Council, where the ultimate authority resides.
margie
Wed, Sep 22, 2010 : 8:16 p.m.
It's pathetic; I live in this neighborhood and have never heard any dog barking. They have done plenty to address the concerns of the people living in the neighborhood. However, UM new Soccer Stadium Castle is now the biggest noise polluter to this neighborhood. Never once did the default leaders of Ann Arbor from UM tried to alleviate the concerns of the neighborhood. Instead, we now have the privilege of hearing the joyful noise of soccer at night in our living room because other universities had one (MSU & Ohio State). They have permission to be as loud as they want until 10 p.m. at night. We don't even live close to this monster that invaded our neighborhood, so we didn't even had the right to speak at the board hearing. Any sane complaint about the noise level of this stadium to the AAPS Police Dept. is diverted to UM Campus Police who then direct you to complain to Athletic Dept. because it is beyond their authority. How sad to think that the people of Ann Arbor are held hostage by the UM Athletic Department. When will the City of Ann Arbor, the State of Michigan and the Board of Regent do their job and make sane decisions on behalf of the citizens. Keep the dogs and put a muzzle on these Athletic Palaces that cause the real noise pollution and don't pay taxes to support our city. Using the argument that it brings money to the city...well you don't have to listen to this lovely sound at night in your living room with the door closed.
Mary
Wed, Sep 22, 2010 : 8:10 p.m.
This truly is a puzzling vote. Of all the noise-contributing elements that make Ann Arbor the great city it is, how can it be that a wholesome, positive business which has shown so much concern for it's community, could be denied on the basis of noise? I have walked down the street a number of times and never heard anything but car radios, fatigued mufflers, and an occasional horn honking, NONE of which came from the dog care facility. More telling are the comments of bias. A commission member not liking yapping dogs? Has she been near a public school lately? Far more howling there! I expect more from a commission entrusted with serving the public. I expect the decisions of our public servants to reflect the good of the people in the community and NOT to allow a single member of opposition and a few letters to decide for everyone. The community members' rights are not in peril. Business have to obey noise ordinances, too. If the business expands and breaks the rules; they will pay then. Don't shut out business growth.
denise1inaa
Wed, Sep 22, 2010 : 7:55 p.m.
Based on this article, I do not see the problem that expansion for this facility "seemed" to pose for our CITY COUNCIL. My conservative side says"YES MORE JOBS and business expansion"... as my liberal side says "YES let us take care of our most vulnerable creatures" everybody wins?
julieswhimsies
Wed, Sep 22, 2010 : 7:18 p.m.
Ann Arbor City Council. Bad decision.
just a voice
Wed, Sep 22, 2010 : 6:48 p.m.
welcome to ann arbor, where if your not part of the 'inner circle' things are very hard to get done, its all about making sure to hob-nob with the right people welcome to one party rule
BornNRaised
Wed, Sep 22, 2010 : 6:45 p.m.
I wonder why anyone would want to own a business in Ann Arbor anymore. Move your business to a surrounding community that appreciates businesses and stop giving your money to AA. Maybe when all the businesses leave someone will wake up in this god forsaken town
Brad
Wed, Sep 22, 2010 : 6:14 p.m.
There are city ordinances that cover acceptable noise levels. Have they ever been in violation of that? Is there a GOOD reason to think that they would be with the new configuration? Not "yapping dogs make me crazy", an OBJECTIVE reason?
townie
Wed, Sep 22, 2010 : 4:57 p.m.
This decision can be appealed to the Zoning Board of Appeals if the owners choose to do so.
snapshot
Wed, Sep 22, 2010 : 4:46 p.m.
You gotta love most of the dog lover folks here who are willing to sacrifice some peoples right to peace and quiet to satisfy their own selfish wants and needs. They feel their needs should be met and their complaints and objections heard at the ommission of others. If one barking dog destroys the peace of one human being, then who should we prioritize? The dog, or the human? If you want to own a dog then you should be able to care for it properly without inconveniencing others or infringing upon anothers right to peace and quiet. I'm glad the commission shot it down as they should have.
tredd
Wed, Sep 22, 2010 : 4:29 p.m.
I watched this travesty live last night on TV. The closest neighbors are in an apartment complex across the road. While they didn't have the exact numbers, the planning staff showed on the sight plan that the edge of what looked like a modest (something less than 40'x40' dog run was at least 80 feet from the property line, then the street easment, then a 3 lane road, then the street easment on the other side of the road, and then another 20 feet to the apartment building. The 4 commissioners who voted against the proposal were an embarassment in both their comments and their vote. It was interesting to finally see the people I used to just read about in the newspaper in action. It really lends credence to the claim that these are hand picked members with their own (and the mayor's) agenda and not looking after our own interests. If you would have watched the further debate on the new credit union going in (yes going in, the other 6 members over ruled them on this one) at the corner of Stadium and Liberty you would have been amazed at the ignorance and tunnel vision on display.
Pat
Wed, Sep 22, 2010 : 4:07 p.m.
This facility is in my neighborhood and I go past this several times a day. I have never heard any barking. I hear more barking from neighbors' dogs. Given that we are trying to encourage business expansion in the city and state and given that there is little or any noise from this facility, I think this is a very short sighted and troubling decision.
SillyTree
Wed, Sep 22, 2010 : 4:01 p.m.
This doesn't seem fair. Was it really just because of barking? I thought there was something to do with not enough room for outside excercise as well.
kmgeb2000
Wed, Sep 22, 2010 : 3:55 p.m.
They could have use the poop to fuel some street lights and extend they're green designation - NO KIDDING. Cambridge, MA has a pilot project with methane digester in the light posts in parks. http://www.govtech.com/technology/Pet-Poop-Fueling-City-Park-Light.html
Barb
Wed, Sep 22, 2010 : 3:37 p.m.
If you feel strongly here's the email address for the Planning Commission: planning@a2gov.org Link to the website - you can find meeting info there: http://www.a2gov.org/government/communityservices/planninganddevelopment/planning/Pages/PlanningCommission.aspx
Stefan Szumko
Wed, Sep 22, 2010 : 3:37 p.m.
@Dalex64 - You must have been reading my mind. The strip of land between the mall and the freeway seems perfect to me, especially if they offer drop-in opportunities. While we're brainstorming...why not a drop-in day care for humans at a shopping mall or other business district (ie. downtown). IKEA can do it, why not anywhere else?
Advo
Wed, Sep 22, 2010 : 3:33 p.m.
A business wanting to grow and increase their payroll, especially in the present economic climate. Is this not the reaction you would expect from the Ann Arbor Authorities? This is the home of the University of Michigan, but it still ain't a community of intellectual giants.
v
Wed, Sep 22, 2010 : 3:28 p.m.
I am so tired of the way The Republic of Ann Arbor does "business." I have visited Arbor Dog many times and never heard ANY barking. I don't believe there was ever a barking problem in the first place, just crabby neighbors looking for their next thing to complain about... followed by the commission basing votes on personal prejudices. If this passes for democracy, count me out. Arbor Dog's facility has a really nice concept. Shameful that petty people can completely block any progress for this local business who would have provided more jobs SOON!
Dalex64
Wed, Sep 22, 2010 : 3:08 p.m.
It sounds like, if the decision can not be appealed, that the solution is to move out of the city. Perhaps they could get a tax abatement from a township to cover their moving expenses. Or, whatabout the Briarwood Lay-Z-Boy spot? They could get drop-ins, and add to mall traffic. Perhaps the city could then give them a tax abatement to cover their moving expenses, and keep them in the city!
Gordon
Wed, Sep 22, 2010 : 2:52 p.m.
I'm in favor of the expansion. For workers, familes the dog care is a lot of help. We have small yapper type dogs in our neighborhood and they are a pain to listen to. Better training would reduce much of the noise. It does certainly appear a commissioner is reflect her biasis.
Lets Get Real
Wed, Sep 22, 2010 : 2:48 p.m.
Let's Get Real about this group of commissioners who voted against this expansion: spoiled, comfortable in their own affluence and self-importance. Given a little bit of power they rule, ignoring the need for more jobs in Michigan, ignoring the need for more services for those who do have jobs and money to pay for the services, and ignoring the tax revenue benefits of having a larger, thriving, successful, profit making business to highlight as a model of success for our region. Rather they will stiffle these hardworking small business owners who have a good idea, a business model that works, a conservative plan for growth, and who executed their plan well. I thought the two biggest concepts in Michigan's economic recovery are business growth and job creation. Adding square footage - means sort term construction jobs. Adding more dogs & increasing hours of operation - means long term jobs, both full time and partime. Given this location, the proximety to the residences, the zero change in outdoor activity, and the committment of complainers, only one of whom took the time to come and speak, this decision is a travesty. Commissioners, do you understand the concept of supply and demand? The best businesses do something people need, want and can afford. There is a demonstrated demand. Let this vendor supply the service that is needed, wanted, and clearly can be afforded by customers. Let's Get Real, if AA doesn't, there are other jurisdictions in the immediate vacinity who would welcome this business with open arms.
Christy
Wed, Sep 22, 2010 : 2:47 p.m.
Every time SemperFi comments, I smile a little on the inside. Seriously, can we file a motion for reevaluation? Or should we all somehow realize all of these things are happening, before they do, so we can take time off of our jobs to go be supportive so we don't have to shake our heads after it's too late? I would really love to know who I need to elect so that personal biases about dogs aren't a factor in a business decision that is actually *good* for the city.
LBH
Wed, Sep 22, 2010 : 2:42 p.m.
Jon and Margaret I was very sorry to read that you were turned down, especially after you made such an effort to reach out to the neighbors. This is one of the things that is crazy making about Ann Arbor. Vocal minorities seem to rule more often than not. I hope you can find something close by which will accommodate your expanding business. I guess Ann Arbor doesn't need your tax dollars. Good luck!
SemperFi
Wed, Sep 22, 2010 : 2:39 p.m.
Can_nine people make a poorer decision for the city? It's just a Dog_gone shame that the commission could hound a firm to leave the city any quicker. They're saying, "If you want to expand your roof_line, you'll have to leave the City of Ann Arbor." That's plenty to bark about.
Barb
Wed, Sep 22, 2010 : 2:38 p.m.
Well said, @suswhit.
arbormike
Wed, Sep 22, 2010 : 2:38 p.m.
It seems to me the commission voted based on their person likes/dislikes about dogs. Is there such a thing as doggy discrimination? I hate crabby old ladies who think they know everything about everything
townie
Wed, Sep 22, 2010 : 2:28 p.m.
The Svobodas should simply merge their dog daycare into the Zingerman's family of businesses. Approval by the City would then be assured. Heck, instead of a special use permit, they could probably even get the zoning at their location changed to suit their specific needs--not to mention free money from the DDA, and Brownfield money from the County. After all, there is all that dog poop that needs cleaning up, right?
Chuck
Wed, Sep 22, 2010 : 2:26 p.m.
Someone tries to make a larger, better business, and the city council says no. WHO'S SIDE are the council on? I thought we were all about growth. Do these fools not want people to succeed?
Rick
Wed, Sep 22, 2010 : 2:21 p.m.
I also live right by there and walk my own dog by there and have no idea what they are complaining about.
1bigbud
Wed, Sep 22, 2010 : 2:19 p.m.
Ok Its time to move to AA twp. Pittfield even Ypsi Noise level Have you been outside a bar in AA When we are trying to sleep on the sidewalks and benches And they want to know why we are so grumpy
Christy
Wed, Sep 22, 2010 : 2:17 p.m.
"Take the Doggie Care out of the city." I'm having a hard time understanding your comment, but it seems like you're suggesting 1. To remove the facility from the city proper * As a dog owner, this greatly reduces the convenience of using such a facility in the first place, while also adding additional commuting time. "I have been of foot, and if it was not for the sign in front you would never know there is a doggie Care back there." Then surely the noise couldn't be a deciding factor if you were to vote. You would've heard the sound before even seeing the sign. My neighbor takes her Huskie to that dog care while at work and really likes the service and staff with her pet. "Give them a few more feet. Reminder shoppers Briarwood Mall would like for you too leave your pet in the car while shopping... Just around the corner from the Mall......" So, you're saying to keep it in the city so people can use it while shopping to make a more comfortable situation for their pet? Because that, I can stand behind.
suswhit
Wed, Sep 22, 2010 : 2:13 p.m.
This is utterly absurd. This is the crowd that will vote to destroy a neighborhood (Bona, Giannola, Westphal and Carlberg) but won't let an existing business expand. And why? Because Carlberg says "yapping dogs make her crazy." You. Have. Got. To. Be. Kidding. Maybe if the doggie day care crammed their building with a couple hundred students in 6 bedroom units they could get Planning Commission support.
Christy
Wed, Sep 22, 2010 : 2:11 p.m.
How lovely. We deny a local business the ability to expand, hire additional staff (further providing our city with much needed jobs) and giving us a better means of taking care of our dogs during the day while we work longer hours, in an effort to make more money, so that we can attempt to thrive in a very, very tough economy. Good call. I would like to know, do the dogs bark all night, or is this just during the day when the majority of these neighbors would be working anyway?
djm12652
Wed, Sep 22, 2010 : 2:07 p.m.
Way to go Planning Commission! In this economy, do everything you can to deter business growth...heaven forbid-even maybe hire new employees...Lord knows too many people work now as it is...doing nothing but choking the tax revenue coffers...Kudos to you for your foresight into the future when we'll all be out of job!
breadman
Wed, Sep 22, 2010 : 2:06 p.m.
Take the Doggie Care out of the city. I have been of foot, and if it was not for the sign in front you would never know there is a doggie Care back there. My neighbor takes her Huskie to that dog care while at work and really likes the service and staff with her pet. Give them a few more feet. Reminder shoppers Briarwood Mall would like for you too leave your pet in the car while shopping... Just around the corner from the Mall......
CountyKate
Wed, Sep 22, 2010 : 1:57 p.m.
There certainly seems to be some unsound reasoning on the part of the naysayers on the commission. (No pun intended.) I think it probable this business will now decide to move elsewhere. As the story says they owners were planning on adding additional staff, this means less jobs for the city. Way to support your local businesses, commissioners.
Barb
Wed, Sep 22, 2010 : 1:53 p.m.
Unreal. I agree with @Stephen and @Tarc. This is a very unfair (and troubling!) decision. If anyone knows where this facility is located, I would say it's practically an *ideal* location for a dog daycare. And reading the comments of Mr. Svoboda, it sounds to me that they did everything possible to make this a desirable expansion. My prediction is that the City will lose this business to one of the townships. What a shame.
FifT7
Wed, Sep 22, 2010 : 1:40 p.m.
An A2 Councilman and his wife are lying in bed and the neighbors' dog is barking like mad in the backyard. The councilman says "To heck with this!" and storms off. He comes back upstairs 5 minutes later and his wife asks "What did you do?" The councilman replies "I've put the dog in our backyard. Now let's see how they like it!"
Tarc
Wed, Sep 22, 2010 : 1:32 p.m.
This facility is in my neighborhood, and I go by it several times a day. I've never noticed a noise problem. The facility is located on the very edge of a neighborhood, proximal only to a few condos that have a park on the other side. Most of the dog runs are done during the business day, when most residents within earshot are at work. Since there is no plan to change the nuber of dogs in the run on the outside, as long as theer are assurances that the expansion space would be sound insulated, there is absolutely ZERO reason for the expansion to be denied. I have a really hard time understanding the reasons to hinder a business expansion within the city limits at this time.
Matt Peckham
Wed, Sep 22, 2010 : 1:32 p.m.
Nor, on the other hand, does an appeal to complex acoustic principles validate the "rights" of an oversensitive minority.
Macabre Sunset
Wed, Sep 22, 2010 : 1:21 p.m.
A sharp, single noise like a bark is far more disturbing at the same decibel level as traffic noise. Sound is very complex. I don't blame the local residents who would consider this a nuisance. Just because the majority of people feel something is OK in their neighborhood doesn't eradicate the rights of the minority.
Stephen Landes
Wed, Sep 22, 2010 : 1:14 p.m.
I have a hard time understanding this vote. It sounds like the owners have done everything they should do to work with their neighbors and it also seems that at least some of the dog barking complaints relate to dogs not in the facility. If there are no exterior changes then the situation shouldn't be worse. What is truly troubling is that one planning commissioner is voting on her own biases -- dog barking really gets to her. That should NOT be the role of a commissioner. If her biases are so strong then she should simply not vote on this issue. We are not to be governed by the commissions personal wishes, thoughts, and biases.