Residents for and against a new off-leash dog park in West Valley squared off at a public meeting March 6, but protest from the neighbourhood is unlikely to result in a change to the development plan.
According to Suzanne Gaida, senior manager for community services for the town, the roughly eight-acre site – located west of Highway 22, north of Quigley Drive and south of the CP Rail line in the community of West Valley – was identified through the Open Spaces Master Plan more than five years ago.
A number of West Valley residents who would back onto the site are concerned the new dog park would result in a bevy of negative effects.
“We polled the community and the reality is that aside from three houses that were indifferent – where two are renters – nobody in the neighbourhood is in favour of this,” said Corey Stickel, who lives with his wife Lindsay on a property that would back onto the park and border the main pathway entrance.
Dog park advocate and West Valley resident Jim Uffelmann, said the concerns are simple NIMBYism and easily rectifiable through a detailed design phase.
“I think it looks like a well-thought-out plan and will be a great addition to the community,” said Uffelmann. “Extensive mitigation is proposed to minimize impact on homeowners adjacent (to the dog park) and the use of an existing road allowance makes sense.”
The $330,000 capital project includes complete chain link fencing, a paved pathway system and a separate, small dog area in phase one; phase two would include a dog agility/training area and additional parking and is not included in the budget.The Stickels wrote a letter to the town this week, which highlighted such concerns as decreased privacy; increased traffic; concerns over waste clean-up (dog feces); more dogs barking; safety and security; that area residents only found out two months ago that this was happening; and a negative impact on property values.
Several others in attendance at the open house reiterated these concerns.
Jamie Snowden, a West Valley resident and dog owner, said he is “dead-set against it” and that the resulting traffic pressures would pose safety issues for neighbourhood children at play.
Oran Armstrong, whose property would back onto the park, said there is “no doubt this will devalue these properties” and there should have been more collaboration. He also presented a list of communities across the province, noting their size and number of dog parks emphasizing, “None of these parks are in residential areas.”
But advocates for a new off-leash park are confident that any resident concerns could be addressed and that this would result in the improvement of the value of the homes in the community by adding features such as extensive landscaping; a five-metre setback in between the park fencing and the residents’ yards; the addition of a paved pathway system; and the addition of garbage cans.
“I’m in favour,” said dog park user, Dan Overes. “To me it’s the least the town can do for us, given they are going to run a bridge through the best part of our existing park.”
While several people brought up the idea of building a dog park within an existing park like the Cochrane Ranche or Mitford, Gaida said building a dog park in already-busy areas would create further conflicts.
Several dog park advocates agreed there are too many pressures on the existing multi-user spaces to move the off-leash park to another location.
Some, including Nick Heazell, are in favour of a park that doesn’t border the river – which can pose safety concerns for younger or more unruly dogs.
Coun. Jeff Toews, whose motion to run a pilot dog park project in Sunset Ridge last year was rescinded by council, was the only councillor who attended the open house.
Toews emphasized the recently adopted Community Enhancement Evaluation (matrix) suggests all Neighbourhood Plans must include an off-leash area, moving forward.
Those who could not attend the March 6 open house are encouraged to have their voices heard through the online feedback form cochrane.ca/parks.
