Latest news with #barkingdogs
Yahoo
5 days ago
- General
- Yahoo
What Topeka ordinances say about noisy neighbors, barking dogs and loud music
When barking dogs or blaring music disturb their peace, Topekans can remedy that by reporting it. The city can then address the problem and cite the noisemaker in connection with violating any of various ordinances listed in Article II of Section 9.45 of city code. To submit a noise complaint, call the Topeka Police Department at 785-368-9551, according to the city's website. Residents being kept awake by barking dogs might be glad to know that city code 9.45.330 bans "the keeping or harboring of any animal which by causing frequent or long continued noise shall disturb the comfort or repose of any persons in the vicinity." City animal control officers don't respond to barking dog calls, the city's website says. "Topeka Police Officers respond to these complaints under the noise violation ordinance," it says. City code 9.45.190 bans the use or operation of any device that produces or amplifies sound in a manner that disturbs the peace, quiet and comfort of others between 11 p.m. and 7 a.m. For a violation to occur, the sound must be "audible at a distance of 50 feet from the premises, building structure or vehicle in which the device is located,' the ordinance says. Construction-wise, the city bans between 7 p.m. and 7 a.m. 'the erection (including excavation), demolition, exterior alteration or exterior repair of any building or exterior construction project.' It prohibits the operation between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. 'of any pile driver, steam shovel, pneumatic hammer, derrick, steam or electric hoist or other appliance, the use of which is attended by loud or unusual noise.' The city's rules call for its officials, in determining whether a noise ordinance has been violated, to take into account: The volume of the noise. The intensity of the noise. Whether the nature of the noise is usual or unusual. Whether the origin of the noise is natural or unnatural. The volume and intensity of the background noise, if any. The proximity of the noise to residences. The nature and zoning of the area within which the noise emanates. The density of the inhabitation of the area within which the noise emanates. The time of day or night the noise occurs. The duration of the noise. Whether the noise is recurrent, intermittent or constant. And whether the noise is produced by a commercial or noncommercial activity. Shawnee County has considerably less-restrictive rules governing its unincorporated areas than the city does regarding noise. The county's rules ban noise from the discharge, explosion or use of any fireworks is except from 8 a.m. to midnight on June 27 to July 4. They also prohibit "the keeping or harboring of any canine which by causing frequent or long continued noise shall disturb the comfort or repose of any persons in the vicinity." Commissioners put the county's rules in place about 20 years ago, removing numerous requirements from the initial version of the proposal involved after residents said one reason they moved to rural areas was so they could have the freedom to make noise. Contact Tim Hrenchir at threnchir@ or 785-213-5934. This article originally appeared on Topeka Capital-Journal: Topeka ordinances spell out remedies for barking dogs and loud music
RNZ News
01-07-2025
- General
- RNZ News
Owner 'shocked' after being hit with $1400 fee to have three dogs
Owen Haring doesn't think it's justifiable to have to pay that much to have chocolate labrador Holly, dachshund Frankie and golden labrador Harry at his home. Photo: LDR/Max Frethey A Richmond resident has been blindsided by a $1400 fee to keep three dogs on his property. Owen Haring went to register his dogs before the 31 July deadline but was "really shocked" to find out that Tasman District Council requires a resource consent to keep three or more dogs on an urban property. About five minutes down the road, in Nelson City, owners of three dogs require a permit rather than a resource consent because it falls under a different council's rules. Haring has lived on his central Richmond property for seven years and had at least one dog for all that time. The third dog has only recently arrived at his home, having moved in along with his wife following their marriage, and had previously been registered at a different address. Since the three dogs have been on the property, Haring received his first noise complaint related to barking, though he said there was "nothing" in it as someone was almost always with the dogs and any periods of absence would be a "couple of hours at most". It was when dog control first visited after that complaint that Haring first heard about needing a resource consent, which has a $1400 deposit, to have three dogs on his urban property. The consent would be on top of the three charges of $90 to register each dog. "I'll register all three, but I'm not going to be paying the resource consent just because I don't think it's right. How can they justify that?" he asked. "It's a significant amount for people to cough up." Haring didn't want to be "dishonest" by registering the dogs elsewhere and would welcome an officer to conduct an inspection of their property to ensure it was suitable, "but we're not going to be paying $1,400 for red tape," he said. While the $1400 is a deposit, and some of the money could be returned, he said he talked to another resident who went through the process and only received $70 back. "I'm not someone that jumps up and down about anything, but what do you do? Do you choose who's going to go out of the three? It can be pretty stressful." Tasman District Council's group manager environmental assurance Kim Drummond said having three or more dogs on smaller urban properties could increase problems. "This opens up the potential for amenity, odour and noise issues to be more difficult to manage - particularly in the eyes of nearby residents." The resource consent process looks at the potential effects of those three issues on neighbours which is determined, in part, by a site visit from a council staff member. If the effects were low, that would be reflected in the time spent processing the consent, Drummond added. If a consent is granted, it is applied to the property indefinitely but isn't carried with the owner and dogs if they move to another location. Council had granted six of the consents over the last four years. Five of the six cost between $1200-$1700 and had approval from affected parties, while the sixth cost $3600 and didn't have approval from all affected parties. Drummond said the council hadn't had to pursue enforcement against a resident who hadn't acquired the consent, but a breach would attract a $300 fine and a requirement to obtain the resource consent. Rural properties can gain a kennel licence which "seems to be more attractive". Drummond added the issue had not surfaced during recent reviews of the dog control bylaw or its fees and charges, nor were there requests to change the rule, which was in the Tasman Resource Management Plan. Nelson residents don't need a resource consent to keep more than two dogs on an urban property and instead just need permission from the council. Nelson council's group manager environmental management Mandy Bishop said after a resident completed an application form, the council checked for past complaints and inspected the property to determine if a third or subsequent dog may cause a nuisance. "If we grant a permit, it will include the names of the specific dogs approved. If the dogs on the property change, the resident must renew the permit." The permit applies to the dogs specified rather than the property with the permit needing to be renewed if the dogs on the property change, and can be cancelled by the council at any time. If more than two dogs are kept without permission, the council can issue an infringement notice. After three notices, a resident can be barred from owning any dogs for up to five years. LDR is local body journalism co-funded by RNZ and NZ On Air.
