| Home | Bookmark | Tell | Active petitions in over 75 countries | Follow GoPetition |
Petition Tag - ordinance
1. Bike Lane for Longboarding/cruising 
Skateboarding is absolutely prohibited on Pacific Avenue in Santa Cruz. We would like to at least have this ordinance amended so that only trick skating is prohibited, as only trick skaters damage property when attempting or performing "tricks".
Those on a skateboard in the bike lane only wishing to get around prove no greater threat to themselves or others around them than cyclists.
We wish that skateboards be allowed in the bike lane, as long as no "tricks" are performed.
2. New Drainage Utility Fee should be Lower in Richardson TX
Background information for this petition can be found at the following link:
http://www.nsn.us.com/101-world-news/news-us/26108-new-drainage-utility-fee-for-richardson-texas
3. Bring Noah Home (Non Platte City Residents)
You can google "Wayward Wallaby" or "Noah the Wallaby" and you be filled with news sites that give you all the insight into his special situation.
Noah has been part of the Wood family for 4 years, adopted at 10 months out of the pouch. When we moved from Colorado to Missouri, we misunderstood the laws regarding exotics in Missouri. When Noah got out of his pen on Thanksgiving, he was taken to the Zoo till further action.
There is an ordinance against exotics in Platte City. This was not to our knowledge and he was thus taken.
The Board of Alderman is likely to not make any changes to the ordinance.
This is a support petition. We are asking that if you support Noah being a part of the Wood family, to sign.
We are asking the Board of Alderman to consider amending the ordinance to allow for an appeals process to obtain a "conditional use permit" to keep Noah. As written, the law currently allows no flexibility. We understand our mistakes, but he is of absolutely no danger to the community, and we are asking for help in bringing him home.
http://www.kctv5.com/story/16445078/platte-city-to-not-let-family-keep-wallaby?=#WNPoll114998
http://fox4kc.com/2012/01/03/wallaby-may-not-be-able-to-come-home/
4. Support the Laketown Large Scale Commercial Activity Ordinance
The Large Scale Commercial Activity Ordinance is important to the Laketown Community to help protect the rural character of the environment that we live in. This ordinance helps our community to up hold the Comprehensive plan that was approved by the Laketown Township in November of 2009.
This ordinance does not restrict citizen of Laketown, but allows the township to implement control on Large scale business. Examples of such controls would be hours of operation, noise and environmental contamination.
5. Properly Regulate Alcohol Sales and Brown Bagging
This is our present city ordinance.
It shall be unlawful for a convenience store, service station or other type of retail establishment holding a permit authorizing the sale of beer and light wine for off-premises consumption to:
(1) To sell beer or light wine to any person between the hours of 2:00 a.m. and 7:00 a.m. on Monday through Saturday, and between the hours of 2:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m. on Sunday.
(2) To permit consumption of beer or light wine on the premises of the store or retail establishment.
(3) To sell, give or furnish beer or light wine to any person visibly intoxicated or to any insane person, or to any habitual drunkard, or to any person under the age of twenty (21) years.
(4) To permit on the premises any lewd, immoral, or improper entertainment, or conduct or practices.
(5) To permit or suffer gambling or the operation of games of chance upon the licensed premises unless otherwise allowed by the Mississippi Gaming Act.
(6) To receive, possess or sell on the premises any beverage of any kind or character containing more than five (5) percent alcohol by weight.
(7) To display or sell beer or light wine from an ice tub or similar container, other than a mechanical refrigeration unit.
This is our present city ordinance. There are some people in our community that would like to change the ordinance due to the fact they say we are losing much needed sales tax revenue to the county and Louisiana, where beer and light wine can be purchased all day, every day.
The Village of Barrington Hills is seeking to enact an Exterior Lighting Ordinance that will significantly restrict resident's rights to choose how they illuminate their homes, driveways and landscapes.
The Ordinance was drafted at the request of the Village Board by the Plan Commission, and is now being considered by the ZBA for approval and subsequent forwarding to the Board.
Most in the village believe the Ordinance is too restrictive. Anything from a simple, single floodlight to the wattage of the lighting at one's doorway would be regulated with fines imposed for non-compliance regardless if you live on one or one hundred acres.
We believe this is wrong, and hope that you agree with your petition signature.
7. Petition to the Town of Southington CT to adopt a Noise Ordinance
Southington CT currently has no noise ordinance and the residence have no protection against excessive noise exposure.
8. Stop Dog Breeding in our Subdivision
Background:
The Martins at 8116 La Fon Avenue, Zelma Fields Subdivision, in Louisville KY are breeding and selling dogs in their residence basement, garage, and privacy-fenced backyard. On multiple occasions, there have been as many as 6 adult dogs and 10-15 puppies in the backyard of this residence.
The backyard is less than ¼-acre lot, which is adverse to the new Louisville Animal Control ordinance restricting a homeowner to have a minimum of ½ acre of property for 3 dogs. This “business” results in unacceptable noise levels and sanitation concerns.
The noise problem has been addressed to the owners by the neighbors with no correction. The situation was also reported to Louisville Animal Control. When Animal Control responded, the dogs were put in the basement before responding to the door. The privacy fence hides the “business” from the street, but not from the neighbors in the adjoining backyards.
Owners of the adjoining properties in the subdivision must deal with noise, odor, and feces run-off from the dog-yard onto our adjoining properties. Clean up has been observed using a water hose with a spray nozzle to breakdown the dog feces in the yard and driveway. The run-off drains onto the adjoining properties. When the dogs are kept in the basement of the home, is cleanup of the dog breeding area washed into the city sewage and drainage system?
9. Smoke-Free Campus: Butler Community College
We all know that cigarettes are bad for your health, whether we want to admit it or not. Smokers say that they have the right to smoke wherever they want to smoke.
It is not right for people to be able to smoke where non-smokers have to be. It is wrong for non-smokers to have to walk through peoples' smoke. The buildings on campus are smoke-free. It is time for the grounds to be smoke-free too.
10. Repeal the Belle Plaine Ordinance
The Belle Plaine City Council has passed an ordinance that restricts large grocer/retail combo stores from our city!
11. Hey Mayor of Pitman, can we park in your driveway?
*There is currently a new "Municipal Parking Lots" ordinance that will be in effect starting September 1, 2008.
*This ordinance will require Pitman residents who do not have parking at their homes, to purchase a parking permit to park in a public lot. Without purchasing this overnight parking permit for $100 per year, overnight parking in a public lot is prohibited. (For more information please see the flyer or go to www.pitman.org)
*Parking is difficult already for most residents who reside near the historial Pitman Grove. Most houses do not have driveways for parking to begin with. Some houses only have partially paved alley ways to park in. With these alley ways only partially paved, it makes getting in and out very difficult especially during winter months when it snows.
*We are also not allowed to park infront of our houses between the hours of 2:00 am to 6:00 am without being ticketed. They allow us to "call" our cars in if we do have to park outside. However, if you call too many times you abuse your parking priviledge and they put you on a reject list.
*Pitman recently expanded the baseball field on Lincoln and Cleveland Ave which took away ample parking for Pitman residents. That field is rarely used for anything.
*The ordinance states that even if we buy these $100 parking permits they can not guarantee parking spots. What do we do then? Where do we park? This ordinance is already creating more problems then we presently have.
*Why are the residents near the Grove being penalized because we do not have ample parking like other areas of Pitman? It is not justifiable that the residents who don't have sufficient parking have to pay $100 a year just to park their car.
Please sign the following petition to help us to oppose this ordinance.
12. Ordinance 08-13 in its present format is Unfair to Homeowners
Osceola County is proposing the introduction of a new Ordinance (08-13) which will not allow all landowners in communities to vote or stand for Board of Supervisors.
By only allowing US citizens with Osceola County registered voting access to vote or stand for election under Ordinance 08-13 and denying ALL landowners and full tax payers to vote, Osceola County is discriminating against us and dividing our communities, which will not be run fairly and equitably by and for EVERY landowner.
Indian Creek is 90% STR Homes, we feel as homeowners we should have an adequate voice in all aspects of the neighborhood.
13. Say NO to Ordinance 08-13 in its present format
Osceola County is proposing the introduction of a new Ordinance (08-13) which will not allow all landowners in communities to vote or stand for Board of Supervisors.
By only allowing US citizens with Osceola County registered voting access to vote or stand for election under Ordinance 08-13 and denying ALL landowners and full tax payers to vote, Osceola County is discriminating against us and dividing our communities, which will not be run fairly and equitably by and for EVERY landowner.
14. Make a play area for the children
We ask for a safe area for the children to play sports and a playscape for the younger children.
15. Petition Against Proposed Johnston Town Ordinance #2007-16
A petition by Homeowners, Business Owners, Residents, Legal Voters and Taxpayers of the Town of Johnston the proposed Johnston Town Ordinance #2007-16; an ordinance relative to stagnant water as a public nuisance.
16. Lafayette Private Party Ordinance
Lafayette has seen an alarming increase in the number of "home parties" or "lock down" parties. These parties are one of the ways minors gain access to alcohol.
Many of these parties can be particularly problematic because of the large number of drinkers involved and the large quantities of alcohol consumed.
Reports of alcohol poisoning and traffic accidents involving minors who have attended these home parties have become a regular occurence in the Lamorinda area.
The proposed Ordinance does not change any criminal laiblity laws for the possession and/or furnishing of alcoholic beverages to underage persons. Rather, a Private Party Ordinance gives the police an administrative remedy i.e. a fine rather than requiring prosecution through the criminal justice system which is expensive and time consuming for the local police department.
This type of Ordinance is a further tool to be used by law enforcement to reduce the number of private parties in our community where alcohol is consumed by minors.
17. Repeal the Springfield Bar Ban Ordinance
In 2005, less than one percent of DWI's were given to a minor who had been drinking in a bar or nightclub. Not allowing 18-20-year-olds admittance into an establishment where liquor is responsible for sixty percent of the revenue will not hinder underage drinking.
Alternate locations will be sought and found in the form of private parties where peer pressure and the lack of monitoring will cause individuals to indulge themselves who would not have otherwise if they had been in an establishment.
18. Sussex County's Violation Chapter 115, Article XXV, Section 115-191, Zoning Code
To uphold the ordinance adopted by the County Council of Sussex Co., of said violations, parking and storing more than two "2", automotive vehicles or trailers or boats or any kind or type without current license plates shall be parked or stored on any residentially zoned property other than in completey enclosed buildings.
19. Fair and Equal Access to San Anselmo Street Banners
The Town of San Anselmo is proposing to adopt an ordinance that will make the across-the-street banners on Drake and Tunstead and the Hub sign available only to those who have political "pull." The banners and Hub sign are valuable, precious community resources, and they should be made available on a fair and equitable basis to qualified organizations.
There is a Town Council meeting at 7 p.m. on Tuesday, Nov. 28, at 110 Shaw Drive, behind Safeway. Please sign this petition, and appear at the Town Council meeting to voice your opposition to this unfair ordinance.
Background
For many years, the Town of San Anselmo allowed organizations to advertise “charitable and civic events” on two street banners across Sir Francis Drake Blvd. and Tunstead Ave., and on a sign at the Hub. The street banners and Hub sign were used by most organizations in Town, including the Stapleton Ballet Nutcracker, the Ross Valley School District Yes! Foundation, the Drake Pirate Pancake Breakfast, the Sleepy Hollow Kitchen Tour, the San Anselmo Baseball Association, Lower Brookside Octoberfest, Manor School Winter Faire, the Chamber of Commerce Art and Design Festival and many, many others.
In October 2005, the Town administration approved the display of a street banner for a political campaign (“Yes on Measure B”). Since the Town’s ordinance permitted banners only for “events”, this political campaign sign clearly violated the ordinance. The Town administration allowed it anyway, presumably because the Yes on Measure B Committee was composed of Town Councilmembers. The Yes on Measure B banner was followed by another political banner (“Yes on 73”).
Adoption and Administration of the Emergency Ordinance
In response to many public complaints about these political banners, in November 2005, the Town Council adopted an emergency ordinance prohibiting all parties, other than the Town government itself, from erecting street banners and Hub signs.
In short order, the Town administration violated this ordinance as well. Over the course of the last year, street banners have been displayed by several organizations that are not part of the Town government. These included banners for an organic Farm Stand (a commercial enterprise), Girls on the Run (an event in Tiburon), the San Anselmo Baseball Association (an independent association that is not affiliated with the Town government), and a Fairfax Haunted House (produced by the Fairfax Chamber of Commerce). Each of these banners, displayed with the express approval of the Town administration, violated the emergency ordinance, which limits banners to Town government messages only.
In the meantime, other community organizations saw that the Town was allowing numerous non-Town street banners and signs. When these organizations asked for banner space, their requests were denied, for no valid reason. In addition to violating the Town’s own emergency ordinance, it is patently unfair, not to mention unconstitutional, that the Town administration is able to pick and choose which banners to display.
The Proposed New Ordinance
The Town administration has now proposed a new permanent ordinance, which is similar to the failed emergency ordinance. In the new ordinance, banners are permitted “to promote special events of which the Town is either the sponsor or a co-sponsor.”
The terms “sponsor” and “co-sponsor” are not defined. Is it sufficient for the Town administration to simply say that the Town is a sponsor or co-sponsor? Or does the Town have to contribute any funds or staff time in order for an event to count as a sponsorship or co-sponsorship? Does the Town have to be named as a sponsor or co-sponsor in any publicity materials, or can the Town administration simply agree to be a “silent” co-sponsor?
In addition, there is no indication of who would decide on behalf of the Town whether or not to sponsor or co-sponsor an event. Would it be the Town Council? A Town Commission? Any Town staff member?
And what is the criteria for determining whether to sponsor or co-sponsor an event? Will the Town look at the content of the proposed banner to see whether it is acceptable to the Town? Will the Town look at the organization, and make some determination as to whether that organization’s views and policies fit with the Town government’s view of politics?
The proposed ordinance is flawed in the same way as the emergency ordinance. There are no objective standards as to who can display a banner and who cannot. If a group has “pull” within the Town government, it can request that the Town be a “co-sponsor” of the event. If the Town administration agrees, then the group can use the banner space. If, however, the Town administration decides for whatever reason not to “co-sponsor” the event, then the banner space is not available.
Because the banner space is a public forum created by the government, any right by the government to control access to that forum based on the content of the banner or the organization is clearly an unconstitutional violation of freedom of speech. Under the proposed ordinance, the Town government is allowed to grant or deny access to a valuable public resource, street banner space, based on the content of the banner’s message or the group displaying the street banner. If the proposed ordinance is adopted, the Town would be opened up to fair criticism by any group that did not receive “co-sponsorship” and therefore was denied banner space by the Town administration.
In addition, it is unfair to the community to allow some groups with political pull to get to use this extremely valuable community resource, but then deny its use by others.
The Town administration believes the proposed banner ordinance is legal and constitutional based on a recent court of appeals case. However, the ordinance at issue in that case is dramatically different from the one proposed by the Town. The Town cannot rely on that court case to claim that the proposed banner ordinance is legal and constitutional.
The Citizen’s Sign Committee Recommendation
In January 2006, the Town Council convened a Citizen’s Sign Committee, a group of 21 residents and business owners, to study signage issues. The Sign Committee debated the street banner issues for hours. After several months of weekly meetings, the Sign Committee recommended to the Town Council that street banners and the Hub sign be permitted for the following purposes:
Town-sponsored events, Ross Valley accredited schools, Ross Valley youth organized sporting and cultural events, and 501(c)(6) [chamber of commerce] status for Ross Valley businesses.
What we are seeking
We are simply asking that the Town Council adopt the recommendations of the Citizen’s Sign Committee. Banner space should be allocated on a fair and equal basis to all organizations that meet objective criteria. The banner space is an extremely valuable and precious community resource that should be made generally available to the community, not just to a select few who have political pull.
20. Noise Ordinance for Walnut Park Residents
Recently a local resident has begun to play their music at excessive levels during the day and night.
This has caused many of us residents to not enjoy a nights rest or to enjoy our own domain due to this noise.
21. Keep ferrets off the list of proposed exotic animal ban in Chicago!
There is a proposed ordinance in Chicago that might make owning a ferret in Chicago illegal. We can't have this. Ferrets are not dangerous, do not carry monkeypox or rabies, and are the third most popular pet just behind dogs and cats! This ordinance needs to remove ferrets from the list.
22. Return our quality of life - less noise at Emmerich Parks!
10/26/2002
Petition to Give us back our quality of life
To: The Village of Buffalo Grove
ARE YOU TIRED OF THE NOISE AT EMMERICH PARK? IT'S ABOUT TO GET WORSE UNLESS YOU HELP.
Neighboring residents have recently attended several Village meetings in protest of the Buffalo Park District's request to permit the Buffalo Grove Recreational Association (BGRA) and the Bill George Youth Football League (BGYFL) extended usage of the Public Announcement (PA) systems at both East and West Emmerich Park parcels for the entire season, beginning in 2003.
Prior to 1992 Park Ordinances poorly governed the organizations listed above. In 1991 the Park requested that the Village allow them to install PA systems on both parcels. Public hearings and Village meetings took place due to concerns expressed by not only the residents, but by the planning commission and the village board regarding the request. The planning commission vetoed the request (0 yes - 7 no). The Village amended the wording to "limited use" and passed an Ordinance referencing Emmerich East.
"Limited Use" at Emmerich East was defined as:
· The PA system was limited to homecoming, post-season playoff and tournament football games.
· The PA system was limited to three weekends (six days maximum) for football.
· The PA system was limited to a maximum volume of 70 decibels.
· The PA system was limited to specific hours of the day;
o 9:00am - 5:00pm on Saturdays and 12:00noon - 4:30pm on Sundays.
Even though the BGRA and Emmerich West were included in all deliberations, once drafted, the Ordinance failed to include this association and parcel.
"Limited Use" at Emmerich West was discussed to:
· Limit the PA system to All Star games for baseball.
· Limit the PA system to one weekend (two days maximum).
· Limit the PA system to a maximum volume of 70 decibels.
· Limit the PA system to specific hours of the day;
o 9:00am - 5:00pm on Saturdays and 12:00noon - 4:30pm on Sundays.
Through the years, the rules of the Ordinance have constantly been violated, and when requests to enforce the Ordinance were made, little or nothing was done, and the violations continued.
As mentioned previously, the Park District is now asking for amendments to Ordinance. They have requested permission from the Village to allow full usage of the PA from dusk till dawn for the entire football season at the East parcel, and submitted a second request for Ordinance to allow 8:30am start times on Sundays for baseball at the West parcel.
In 1992, there was an estimated 500 participants registered with the BGRA and the BGYFL. There are now an estimated 2,800 participants registered. These numbers do not reflect the teams played against. Activity has risen from some weeknights and some weekends to nearly every night and nearly every weekend.
History of the events that led to the ordinance as well as current events regarding recent discussions can be obtained through the Village web site (www.vbg.org) under "agendas and minutes" then under "board of trustees, preliminary agendas". The most recent meetings regarding this topic began with the Village on September 23rd. The plan commission workshop is anticipated on 11/20/02.
We are asking you as neighbors to help stop any further intrusions to our neighborhood. The continuing growth has polluted and overburdened our streets with traffic and our neighborhood with congestion and noise. Should Emmerich East be allowed full usage of the PA, it will be a matter of time until Emmerich West requests the same. Our efforts are to maintain limited use.
Members of the Village Board have told us that our best defense would be to show up at the public hearings with as many neighboring residents as possible, which is the purpose for this letter. We look forward to any issues, concerns or suggestions that you may have, and truly look forward to your support at future meetings.
Note: We are not fighting City Hall. We are asking that the Village maintain and enforce the "spirit" of the Ordinance, which is to limit the use of any amplified system at both parcels. A petition has been drafted, and there are currently thirty-one (31) signatures. We ask at the very least that you sign this petition. More importantly, please attend as many meetings on this topic as you can.
Gary Gillmeister John Teckorius
196 Raupp Boulevard 199 Raupp Boulevard
847-541-0664 847-459-8599 ggillmeister@attbi.com jteckorius@attbi.com
Give us back our quality of life
I have read the Give us back our quality of life Petition to The Village of Buffalo Grove, and I hereby sign the petition:
Eligible signatories: residents of Buffalo Grove.
On June 12, 2001, Marcella Gawron, the owner of the property located as C&S Body Shop at 842 Adams Ct., Throop, PA 18512 was notified by the Borough of Throop that a complaint had been registered concerning the condition of the above listed property. An inspection at that location revealed a substantial number of junk (*Section 2C of Ordinance #9 of 1992 defines junk as any discarded material or article including scrap metal, scrapped, abandoned or junked motor vehicles, etc.), abandoned (*Section 2D of Ordinance #9 of 1992 defines abandoned as any item resting for 96 hours or more and which is inoperable, without current registration plates, certificate or inspection or in such a condition as to be unusable)and discarded (*Section 2E of Ordinance #9 of 1992 defines discarded as any item resting for 96 hours or more with no known or apparent owner) vehicles were found on the property.
The property owner was also found in violation of Section 3 of Ordinance #9 of 1992 for accumulating or storing junked, abandoned or discarded vehicles, debris, etc. At the present, the property has remained unchanged. Currently, there are junked cars sinking into the ground that are being used to store more junked parts. In addition, the roof of the garages dislodges during wind, used tires are accumulating and scrap metal is abundant. We are demanding that the Borough of Throop take action to improve our neighborhood. This is a residential area - not commercial nor the place for a junk yard.
This eyesore and hazard to the community needs to be cleaned up!!