Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Dog Park topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident raises transparency and proximity concerns over proposed dog park near water tower
Summary
Donna, a resident, told the board she collected seven opposition signatures and said neighbors closest to the proposed dog park near the water tower were not adequately informed; she raised concerns about property values, mosquitoes, and whether proper public notice and minutes record exist.
Donna addressed the board during public comment to oppose a proposed dog park planned near the water tower/Dr. Chan property. She said she collected seven signatures of nearby residents opposing the plan and expressed concern that affected neighbors were not adequately notified.
"There was no discussion with any of the people that would be impacted the most," Donna said, adding that some residents she spoke with had no idea the park could be built so close to homes. She said the project location conflicted with a deeded desire for the land to remain green space and suggested using the former Florence HRI school field on the west side of town as an alternative site farther from residences.
Donna also raised property-value and nuisance concerns: she said residents worry that a dog park close to homes would depress property values and bring more dogs to streets where owners do not always pick up after them. She noted mosquito problems at the proposed site and questioned whether the board had held sufficient public discussion; she reported difficulty finding documentation of prior minutes about the project going back to 2023.
Board members and attendants exchanged recollections about outreach and prior boundary checks; one board member said records from September–December showed discussion but the project needed to be reviewed further. The board agreed to pull minutes and provide Donna with documentation and to clarify whether a formal hearing or vote had been held in past meetings.
No formal decision was recorded at the meeting; the item remained a subject for future board discussion and possible motion by the board to partner, relocate or hold a public hearing.
