Agenda - Planning Commission - 12/03/1998

Home

z.g. November 10, 1998- Page 3 even after the neighbor ate breakfast and tried to read the paper. The neighbor went outside and saw Vogel's dog barking. She said the dog continued to bark for about two hours, prompting her to cai1 the police. The police officer who responded to the neighbor's complaint parked about 50 to 75 feet from Vogel's house. He could see a dog at the rear of Vogel's property and listened to it bark for 15 tO 20 minutes. The officer decided to cite the dog's owner, but Vogel wasn't home. The next day, the officer cited Vogel for violating the city's nuisance ordi- nance m a minor misdemeanor. The ordinance prohibited "creating unreason- ably loud and disturbing noises of such a character, intensity and duration as to disturb the peace, quiet and good order of the Municipality." Vogel pleaded not guilty. He claimed the city violated his due process rights by citing him for a nuisance because the officer provoked his dog. He also argued a dog barking for 15 to 20 minutes in a rural area was harmless. The neighbor testified that she heard Vogel's dog bark for more than two hours. The officer described what he heard as "habitual barking" -- the dog barked for a period of time, then it would stop briefly, and then again begin to bark. Vogel was convicted of violating the nuisance ordinance, and he appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. Vogel was properly convicted of creating a nuisance. The city didn't violate Vogel's due process rights. The ordinance didn't distinguish between provoked or unprovoked barking. In addition, the officer said he parked his car 50 to 75 feet from Vogel's house, which shouldn't have provoked the dog, and he heard the dog bark for 15 to 20 minutes. The neigh- bor heard the dog bark for more than two hours. The ordinance was designed to preserve the quiet enjoyment of an individual's property. Neither Vogel's neighbor, nor any citizen, should be forced to endure the endless racket of a neighbor's dog. The ordinance was meant to prevent this and did not criminalize inherently innocent or harmless conduct. see also: State v. Runnels, 565 N. W. 2d 610 (1989). see also: Akron v. Rasdan, 663 N.E. 2d 947 (1995). Conditional Use -- Neighbors claim gravel mine's permit violated zoning ordinance Citation: Jacobs v. Washburn County Board of Adjustments, Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, Dist. 3, No. 98-...0878 (1998) A gravel company wanted to operate a gravel pit in Washburn County, Wis. It applied to the county board of adjustment for a conditional use permit. The board approved the permit, with conditions. It said the company had to complete all excavating within 15 years and had to build safety berms separat- ing the pit from the highway.