Is the Thoms Estate property on Beaverdam Rd an "ideal" site for a Dog Park?

Friends for a North Asheville Dog Park is an organization of some 50 to 80 people.  They say a dog park will benefit the community by allowing dogs and owners to socialize, and that happier, more exercised dogs will behave better at home.  They also claim nearby real estate will rise in value as dog owners will want to live near the park.  Recently, they have identified a 6-acre parcel at 284 Beaverdam Rd, part of the old Thoms estate, as an “ideal” site for a dog park.  They have raised $5,000, and on May 14, City Council voted unanimously to grant an additional $5,000 to fund a plan for the site.

Why is the Thoms Estate location an "ideal" site for a dog park?  It is close to where the Friends live, and the city may be able to get free land from its owner, Ark Development, who is building a subdivision across Beaverdam Creek.  In other ways, the site is far from ideal.

The Trust for Public Land has published a list of Best Practices for a Dog Park, from the City of Seattle.  Seven criteria are listed; this site fails five.  These are:

    1.     Avoid locations directly abutting residences.  This parcel has 9 residential parcels abutting it, and 19 across a street.  The parcel is 6 acres, and while the placement of the proposed dog park is unknown, it is certain residences will be nearby.

    2.     Assure availability of close-by parking.  A parking lot is proposed, where the house now sits.  However, as a bus stop is nearby, as well as many residences, it is likely the lot will be used for purposes other than a dog park.

    3.     Choose spots where there are minimal impacts on the visual character of the park.  (This assumes a dog park is already contained within a larger park, not abutting residences.)  Dog parks are not attractive, and it is difficult to grow grass.  Usually they are small fenced lots with a mulch floor.  Making a dog park fit into a well-landscaped neighborhood is problematic.

    4.     Avoid sensitive environmental habitats.  Animal waste combined with loose mulch and no grass makes for easy runoff of pollutants into Beaverdam Creek, Spooks Branch and an unnamed creek, which all cross the property.  We are advised by local ecology professor Dr. Ed Hauser, that this is an environmentally sensitive site, and a dog park could possibly cause harm to the Creek, the Audubon Bird Sanctuary, and Beaver Lake.  He recommends a Level 2 Environmental Assessment be performed before proceeding with a dog park.

    5.     Find property with no history.  Establishing the dog park would mean demolishing a house, currently occupied by long-term tenants.  According to Buncombe County tax records, the house was built in 1842.  Many in the community feel it has historic value, and a historical marker at Beaverdam and Merrimon refers to it as the Killian House.  Update:  At the July 18 public meeting, dog park Friends stated they are no longer including the house in the proposed park.  Still unresolved is how much land will be kept with the house.

The other two of the seven criteria are: site to avoid spillover into non-dog areas, and avoid locations near children’s play areas.

Traffic is a concern for local residents.  “Traffic” in this context does not mean simply volume, but fast vehicles coming from many directions, mostly from out of sight.  Beaverdam Road is narrow, has no shoulders or sidewalks, has many curves, and many intersecting streets and driveways.  Skyview Drive intersects Beaverdam at an acute angle, directly across from the proposed park entrance, and it’s a harrowing enough experience entering Beaverdam without opposing traffic added to the mix.

Finances for construction and maintenance have not been resolved.  One suggestion is for the Friends group to raise funds sufficient for construction and ten years’ maintenance.  The Friends have an unfounded belief the land donor will contribute a major share, and they have an unrealistic idea, based upon costs of a dog area within a large park, of the ongoing costs of a freestanding park. City Council was advised on May 14 by Councilman Pelly that the City will have no financial burden arising from the operation of the dog park.  However, at the Friends June 10th meeting, attendees were assured by City officials that the City would bear ongoing maintenance costs such as mowing, trash pickup, restocking dog waste bags, etc.  Mr. Pelly said finances would improve in the future, implying the Friends would have little ongoing financial burden.

It has been said that any project will have detractors, suggesting those of us who oppose the Beaverdam Dog Park are typical “Nimby” (Not in my back yard) protesters. But “Nimby” only has meaning when a project really does have to be in somebody’s back yard.  The first Best Practice outlined above says that a dog park should not be in anyone’s back yard.  A dog park should be located within a larger park, removed from residences.  We also have legitimate concerns that a Beaverdam Dog Park will harm the environment, disturb the neighborhood by being noisy and unsightly, destroy a historic house and evict its tenants, cause accidents, and end up costing money the City can’t afford.