Ferraro says the constant barks from the park would be "annoying," especially at night and on the weekends when the park becomes "out of control" with people getting off work.

Pastrana says he and his wife feel desperate.

After a decade in their home, they're thinking of moving out, but say they're worried about what the park has done to their property value. Both say they have "lost confidence" in the city.

Initially, they were hesitant to speak publicly about their fears, because of potential blow-back from the community.

Neighbours John Farley and Sherry Cox have been clear about their displeasure. They say they experienced threatening behaviour after speaking publicly.

For example, Cox says she's had a dog park user make barking noises at her when she was out walking her dad's dog, and Farley says people have left bags of dog feces on his porch.

But while the residents see inconsiderate dog owners as part of the problem, they say they're more concerned by a lack of consultation from the city.

Each neighbour, plus several more who didn't want to go on record, says there was no notice from the city about the plans — no phone calls, no signage posted at the site, and no letter in the mailbox that would give them a chance to voice concerns before the project got underway.

"One day, all the construction stuff came here... I thought they were fixing the baseball diamond," says Pastrana, who immigrated from the Philippines. "I don't know, in Canada I thought maybe they just put things not considering other people."

The city did send out a press release in May mentioning a leash-free study they'd conducted. That study details the location of the park.

In total, the Mercury Tribune also ran four stories noting the location of the park.

Still, Luke Jefferson, manager of open space planning for the city, says they "didn't do as good of a job as they normally do" when it came to consulting the public.

Jefferson says during the Animal Control Bylaw and Leash-Free Policy updates there was pressure from the public to get the park built, creating a sense of urgency among staff.

Kathy Kolppanen, a dog owner, says the city "cherry picked" input from the community. She's started a petition to point out that the city ignored input like having minimum two acres for the space, and a park open at least until 10 p.m., so people could use it after work.

She was initially concerned about reports of the lack of a gate (since rectified by the city) but after visiting the park she was even more troubled.

"Why would you even open a dog park beside residential?" she asks.

The city's dog park study looked at five locations to guide their decisions: Oakville, Hamilton, Burlington, Kitchener and Centre Wellington.

Of the 26 fenced dog parks considered, only Hill Street Park in Hamilton was close to homes, without something to block sound. It's roughly twice the size, with an entrance away from the houses, instead of directly in front of them.

The city also conducted a survey, completed 744 times. One of the questions was, "Why do you visit this (dog park) the most?" regarding the non-fenced areas already available in the city. The most common answer, with 415 responses, was that the park was close to their house. Proximity was ranked fourth in the city's list of dog park priorities. Misersky also came with parking.

On Nov. 13, the city hosted a consultation with the people who live around the park, at the Victoria Road Recreation centre.

When Pastrana saw the letter notifying him of the meeting, he says he wondered why they were bothering to consult now.

"Is this just to say that they did something?" he wonders.

Jefferson says they wanted to "provide residents with a platform to tell us how they've been impacted" by the dog park.

Media were not invited to the event, but they could sit outside the glass room. About 30 people were in attendance as a mediator hired by the city led the conversation.

After the meeting, Pastrana and his wife said they felt better about the park, realizing they weren't alone in feeling the way they did.

But they say they still don't think anything will be done about it.

"They already spent the money," she says.

Others, like Cox, Danielle Graham and Joanne Thornburn, say the meeting helped them decide they want the park moved.

"The majority of (the people in the meeting) said just move it and learn from your mistakes," says Thornburn.

Farley feels the same, saying there's no future where he can see the dog park still existing where it is now.

"I'm hoping they respect the fact that they've had what I will call a 'planning misadventure'," he says.

"I'm hoping they will rectify this honourably. Because the other pathways, it becomes municipal malpractice."

Jefferson says they'll be going over the results of the meeting, and preparing a report for residents and dog owners.

When asked whether the city would remove the park, he said it was "too early to jump to conclusions."

Two more fenced-in leash-free areas are set to be built in the city. A park on Bristol Street was intended to be opened in September, according to the city's website. Now, it looks like the city is waiting until after a consultation, which will take place on Nov. 20, from 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. at city hall. Details can be found here.

Lee Street Park is scheduled to be open sometime in 2020.