The Barking Dog Blues: Ordinance Standards for Dogs

At some point, we have all probably had to listen to a neighbor’s dog barking its head off. And speaking as someone who has lived next to overzealous barkers, I know it can be really annoying. Barking dogs can be a livability issue for people subject to frequent barking. Sometimes the issue comes to the city council to pass an ordinance that will put a stop to the racket and make life peaceful once again. But it isn’t always that easy.

Cities have explicit authority to regulate the keeping of animals at Minn. Stat. § 412. 221, Subd 21 and such ordinances are fairly common. I see many ordinances that say something like this:

No person owning, operating, having charge of or occupying any building or premises shall keep or allow to be kept any animal which shall by any noise disturb the peace and quiet of any persons in the vicinity thereof.

While it seems like this will do the trick, there are some problems with this language. A barking dog ordinance must give guidance to the pet owners, neighbors, and enforcement officers as to what would be considered allowable or prohibited barking, whining, or other noisy conduct. People have different thresholds of how much barking would “disturb the peace and quiet.” For some, barking all day might not be a disturbance, but for others, a single bark would be. So, this sort of language is very open to interpretation, which leads to arbitrary or inconsistent enforcement, which can ultimately lead to a legal challenge.

In fact, the language quoted above was the subject of a challenge in City of Edina v Dreher, 454 N.W.2d 621 (Minn. Ct. App 1990). The court concluded that the language was unconstitutionally vague and deprived the challenger of his due process rights. The court was concerned that the ordinance, as written, did not provide an objective standard that would allow the owner or enforcement officers to determine if the barking violated the ordinance. The lack of objective standards could potentially lead to arbitrary enforcement.

Ordinances on barking dogs should include objective criteria to determining how much barking is too much. One way to do this is to designate barking, howling, etc. for more than a pre-determined number of minutes as a violation of the ordinance. The Minnesota Basic Code states:

Habitual barking. It shall be unlawful for any person to keep or harbor a dog which habitually barks or cries. Habitual barking shall be defined as barking for repeated intervals of at least five minutes with less than one minute of interruption. The barking must also be audible off of the owner's or caretaker's premises.

With this sort of objective standard, it is easier for everyone to determine if the barking violates the ordinance.

Conclusion:

Cities may adopt ordinances regulating dog barking and howling as a nuisance. It is best to include objective standards in this type of ordinance to help ensure that enforcement is not arbitrary. Additional discussion concerning vague ordinances can be found in our previous entry at: http://lmccodification.blogspot.com/2010/05/recent-case-law-developments-vague.html.

About Guest Author Alexis Stangl:

Alexis is a research staff attorney at the League and one of her areas of interest is in animal control and regulation issues. If you have questions, please contact Alexis at 651-281-1227 or astangl@lmc.org. Also, keep a lookout for the League’s new animal regulation memo that will be introduced this winter!  

Clipart provided by: http://www.pdclipart.org/displayimage.php?album=23&pos=197

Drafting Licensing Ordinances Part II

In my last entry on drafting licensing ordinances, I suggested that the bulk of any licensing ordinance will be devoted to minimizing hazards or nuisances associated with the licensed activity. Since this is where the hard work must be invested, this entry helps to make drafting easier by offering some tips you might want to consider.

When drafting the provisions, I suggest that a drafter first familiarize themselves with the basics of the regulated business or activity. What are its primary objectives? What are the component parts that allow it to carry out its essential functions? For example, the primary business of a liquor licensee is to sell liquor. To do this, it must attract groups of people to consume the liquor through on-site advertisement, it must provide entertainment and manage crowds. Some of the secondary components of a liquor business are receiving and storing product, waste management and building upkeep.

Existing city staff are some of the best experts available to an ordinance drafter trying to understand the essential functions of a licensed activity. In particular, police and public works staff can be of assistance. For example, police staff may be a great internal resource on the workings of pawn shops (a commonly licensed business) and some of the potential problems associated with such licensees.

Once the drafter has researched the business and broken it down into its essential components, some thought should be given to the hazards or nuisances that may be associated with each individual, essential function or component of the licensed business. For example, if receiving deliveries is an essential part of the business, what noise concerns does this generate? What visual blight concerns? Finally, how can these concerns be alleviated through ordinance requirements?

Here is a checklist of potential hazards or nuisances that should be considered for each component of the business.

Noise

Will the licensed activity generate dangerous or annoying levels of noise? A licensing ordinance can adopt state noise regulations. But annoying noise can also be minimized and or eliminated by ordinance requirements for fencing/screening and landscaping (berms), limits on hours of operation, limits on hours for truck deliveries, and limits on numbers of truck arriving and where they idle.

Dust, particulate matter & smoke

Will the licensed activity generate dust or smoke that creates a nuisance or health hazard for neighbors? I previously discussed zoning performance standards for smoke at this blog entry: http://lmccodification.blogspot.com/2010/08/smoke-readers-zoning-ordinances.html

Smoke and dust, like noise, are regulated by state standards. However, smoke and dust may also be alleviated by ordinance provisions related to landscaping and fencing, limits on truck deliveries (along with preferred routes) and limits on operation during high winds.

Visual blight and litter

Will the licensed activity generate large crowds with a concordant amount of litter or waste? Is the licensed activity prone to creating visual blight? Fencing and screening are obvious solutions to blight. However, you may also wish to draft ordinance provisions requiring regular trash pick-up, property maintenance, trash enclosures and limits on-site storage of waste. In addition, you may wish to limit, prohibit or screen outdoor sales, storage or displays.

Lighting and glare

Will the licensed activity generate lighting or glare that annoys neighbors? Lighting and glare issues can be limited by requiring a lighting plan, by prohibiting lights from being pointed towards neighboring lots, and by requiring sensors or light fixtures that limit the amount of light emitted more than 80 degrees above the nadir.

Crowds and safety

Will the licensed activity generate large crowds and disorderly conduct? Ordinance provisions can alleviate some of these concerns by requiring advance notice to the city of special events, requiring additional permitting for outdoor events, or by requiring security such as a “bouncer.”

Conclusion

The checklist above is not meant to be exhaustive. Some unusual activities may create hazards or nuisances not often encountered (vibration, explosion, heat or odor). However, taking the time to learn the essentials of activity to be licensed will often be enough of a road map to identify what potential nuisances might occur. Once these nuisances are identified, clearly drafted ordinance provisions can save your city a great deal of headache farther down the line.

Picture provided by: http://www.publicdomainpictures.net/view-image.php?image=3348&picture=pencil

Tips for Drafting City Licensing Ordinances

Cities license certain businesses and activities to protect the public health and welfare. Often a licensed activity is hazardous in its own right or may be harmless on its own, but prone to hazardous side-effects.

An example of a direct hazard relates to dog licensing - cities license dogs to prevent roving animals that bite and spread diseases (particularly rabies). In contrast, cities regulate massage parlors to prevent harmful side-effects. Nothing about massage is inherently dangerous, but certain criminal activities related to prostitution and human trafficking are frequently associated with massage parlors. Such side-effects can pose a danger to participants, encourage criminality and create neighborhood blight.

Cities also regulate certain businesses, because state law mandates licensing. Liquor licensing is an example of mandated licensing. Cities may opt to be completely “dry” and not have liquor for sale at all within their boundaries. But all “wet” cities, who choose to allow liquor sales must license retailers. State law goes even farther to establish the types of licenses and even some fees.

Conversely, state law prohibits city licensing in other instances. For example, most cities are not permitted to license plumbers anymore. Generally, when city licensing is prohibited, a state license is available. In these instances, the state has expressed an interest in creating uniform standards for statewide licensing. Before drafting a licensing ordinance, it is important to verify that city authority to license exists. A good place to check for authority would be Minn. Stat ch. 412 and the LMC Handbook for Minnesota Cities chapter on licensing: http://www.lmc.org/media/document/1/chapter11.pdf

Once an activity is deemed hazardous, licensing serves one or all of the following purposes:

 Alerts the city that someone in the city is engaged in the hazardous activity or business;

 Allows the city to conduct background checks on persons conducting the business;

 Allows the city to impose reasonable rules on the activity that are a condition of the license;

 Requires the licensee to carry insurance adequate to protect the public from harm resulting from the business of activity.

Drafting Suggestions

When drafting a licensing ordinance, emphasis should be placed on finding language that addresses the hazards posed by the business or activity. The following questions can serve as a “checklist” to help you draft licensing provisions.

 Does state law require specific provisions or language in our local ordinance? For example, state law sets numerous criteria for city tobacco license provisions. See Minn. Stat. § 461.12.

 What type of hazards does this type of activity pose to the community? What nuisance side-effects can it potentially create? This will probably be the lengthiest part of your ordinance. For example, liquor establishments can create noise, litter and light pollution nuisances. Specific provisions should be drafted to address these issues. See our previous entry on drafting city liquor ordinances at: http://lmccodification.blogspot.com/2010/09/is-your-liquor-ordinance-tight-enough.html

 Would a background check on the persons conducting the business increase public safety? For example, background checks are required by the state for liquor licensees and common for massage parlors, pawn shops and door to door peddlers.

 Are there persons who should be exempt from the licensing requirements? For example, it may be unnecessary to require a dog license for the city police dog. In addition, state law exempts blind persons from tobacco licensing fees.

 How will we recover our costs in administering the ordinance requirements? For example, through licensing fees or reimbursement for background check costs.

 What penalties do we want to impose for ordinance violations? In addition to criminal penalties, are administrative sanctions authorized or required? For example, administrative sanctions are required for tobacco and liquor licensees.

 Would insurance requirements increase public safety? For example, state law requires liquor licensees to carry dram shop insurance. Insurance may also be a good idea for public dances, dangerous dogs and body art technicians.

Finally, every licensing ordinance should contain procedures for imposing penalties, revoking licenses and dealing with bad conduct by licensees. Establishing procedures provides licensees with due process – a fair chance to be heard and dispute claims against them. This may reduce conflict and litigation related to licensing. This section of the ordinance should provide at minimum:
 A process for notifying the licensee that the city is considering revoking their license or imposing a penalty (for example, notice sent by mail 10 days before consideration of the matter);

 A process to allow the licensee to request a hearing on the matter where they may dispute statements made against them;

 A hearing process before a disinterested party (before council or city staff);

 A process to inform the licensee of the final decision on the matter (for example, a written summary mailed to the applicant within 20 days of the hearing).

Conclusion:

Licensing is an important tool for all cities to limit hazardous activities and their secondary effects. Licensing is often an area involving an interaction of local ordinance and state law, so ordinances must be drafted with care. However, once state law requirements are met, ordinance drafting should focus on the harms posed by the activity and mitigating those dangers.

Picture provided by http://www.publicdomainpictures.net/view-image.php?image=3348&picture=pencil