Parks and Recreation votes not to recommend a dog park at town athletic fields
Town Council will decide dog park location fate
BAR HARBOR—After months of discussion the Parks and Recreation Committee voted 4-1 to not recommend a dog park at the town’s athletic field. Jeff Dobbs voted against the motion. Chair John Kelly, Vice Chair Greg Veilleux, Secretary Bob Huff, and new member Erin Cough all voted in favor of the negative recommendation.
“Clearly, it’s not over,” Kelly said.
The next step is for the dog park proposal to go to the Town Council with the committee’s recommendation. The council will have final say on if the project to build a dog park on the athletic fields off Park Street by the YMCA will happen, and Kelly was concerned that the full discussion be presented to the Council and not just the motion. He mentioned that information being presented via the meeting’s minutes.
The Friends of the Bar Harbor Dog Park headed by Enoch Albert, Sharon Knopp, Jeff Miller, and Liz Cutler, had proposed that a dog park be built at the town’s athletic fields off of Park Street and next to Cromwell Brook and abutting or close to several lodging and residential properties. Neighbors decried the location, worrying about sound and the quality of their lives as well as potential impact to their lodging businesses. Others worried about liability if injuries happened at the site; the maintenance of the dog park; its closeness to ball fields, basketball courts, a brook; and the need to remove some trees if it were to be at the site. People also mentioned being worried about the town deed and if it allowed the park. They also worried about the town being sued by neighbors.
Proponents said the site was walkable to downtown residents, had a water source, a light source (via the basketball courts), and was in an area where there are already outdoor activities.
The most recent proposal for Friends of Bar Harbor Dog park prior to this was at a Glen Mary site. The Parks and Recreation Committee never had a chance to weigh in on that proposal because it was even more complicated by the fact that Glen Mary is owned by the Village Improvement Association and governed by multiple lease restrictions and covenants. Neighbors there also worried about potential noise and the dog park changing the atmosphere of the neighborhood. The applicants withdrew their proposal based upon what they were hearing.
Town Council Chair Valerie Peacock said in June that the original Glen Mary proposal did come to the Town Council and they heard that there were concerns at that time. The Town Council discussed it but did not have enough information at the time to decide if it was something that they could approve or not. She stated that the Town Council then entered a memorandum of understanding with the group to say that they would pay for the park construction and they would put together a plan that they were going to bring back to the Town Council for approval and that plan needed to include abutter issues.
OTHER POSSIBLE SITES
At the Monday night meeting, the group quickly discussed two other potential locations: the Public Works site off the Crooked Road, specifically behind the current composting section, and near the Hadley Point Beach.
Public Works Director Bethany Leavitt said that she would prefer that the Crooked Road site not be used, citing concerns about the large amount of vehicle traffic within the site. Many vehicles there are large trailers and trucks dumping and picking up materials. She also mentioned the potential expansion of the composting service beyond just leaves and the limited space to expand; the sloping grade; and the lack of good sightlines for the safety of dogs and owners.
“This is maybe taking away opportunity for us in the future,” Leavitt said about expanding the composting operations.
The Hadley Point Beach site also has sloping grades and close neighbors and would require tree removal in the currently unused town-owned space just above the beach on the right-hand side. Neither site was considered easily walkable from downtown.
Albert said that he hadn’t realized that Hadley Point was a possibility though Leavitt said that it had been discussed when Cornell Knight was town manager.
“It’s (Hadley Point) obviously not the preferred site because we prefer as Jeff (Miller) said we’d like something to walk to.” Albert said that he is willing to look at the beach site and see if that is a possibility.
However, finding a location for a potential dog park wasn’t what the Town Council currently needs from the committee, Kelly said. Their current mandate is to recommend or not placing the park at the athletic fields.
IS THERE A NEED?
Leavitt said the need for the dog park should drive its location. “This is to me what the people who are proponents of the dog park might want to explore it a little more,” Leavitt said.
That question is: Do people need an intown location for a dog park or not?
For Cough, it’s about more than the need for the location; it’s also about the need for a dog park at all. She said that when judging the need, the benefit to the town is important.
“The one question I’ve always had is what is the need and where is the need?” Cough said.
A place to go for dogs to be social doesn’t seem like a big need when dogs can be social just walking the streets of Bar Harbor, which is what she and her dog did when she lived in an apartment with no lawn, she said.
COMMITTEE DISCUSSION
For Veilleux the fact that he’s spent a lot of time at the ball fields led to his decision.
“The park is being used now way more than I’ve ever seen it be used. There are so many people,” he said. “It’s just like there’s been an explosion of use in our park.”
He worried about the safety of the dog park in relation to its closeness to the ballfield and pop flies and foul balls, but he focused on the potential overuse of the town’s green space at the fields.
“I look at our town and the overuse for our common areas from visitors,” he said. “There’s no sacred place that’s not being inundated by visitors.” He continued, “I’m having a very difficult time coming to a conclusion that this is the best spot we can have for a dog park.”
Dobbs said he saw all the other committee member points, but he just “felt a little different.” The worst case scenarios of injuries or overuse or dogs running wild are just scenarios, he said.
“All the bad stuff that’s been put in front of us just isn’t going to happen,” Dobbs said. “I just feel in my heart that it will work out and everyone will live happily ever after.”
Kelly said that he tried to enter the discussion with an open mind and doesn’t have comments about the dog park’s purpose or benefits. He said he’s heard good points on both sides, but because it’s not a clear decision—when something is controversial and a new use is proposed—he would rather not make a change to the town’s property or use.
He specifically said that the site is a tight location, and he doesn’t like taking down trees or denuding the buffer to Cromwell Brook, and that the distance between the dog park and ball field is also extremely tight.
Because the ball field is an existing use, it takes priority to him. He also mentioned the neighbors’ concerns about sound and that parking would likely be a big issue.
When the proponents talked about when they travel, they said that they took their dog or dogs and went to dog parks.
“That’s certainly going to happen here. A large portion of visitors bring pets.” Kelly said, “This would be very attractive to them.” Those visitors, he believed, may be lovely people, but they aren’t invested in the town or the park and he thinks self-policing would fall apart. “Adding more demand to that park is a challenge,” he said.
Huff agreed, saying that in his position at the YMCA, which also uses the fields, he has a “front row seat” to people allowing their dogs to romp freely over the fields unleashed and not necessarily picking up after them.
Like Leavitt and Cough, Kelly said, “I have not seen any concrete information that this is something that the town needs or needs to be provided by the town.”
He also reiterated that he’s concerned about the longevity of the organization to preserve the location, maintain it and police it. He said it’s not a nonprofit; there’s no staff; there’s nothing to ensure that this entity is going to continue over the long term. The deed for the land could be interpreted in many ways and the plain read of it (for him) is not allowing a dog park as a use and he’d like to protect the town from liability if the neighbors decided to sue.
“I just think it’s time to move it on and let them (the council) discuss it,” Dobbs said. “We’re beating ourselves up over this and trying to make everyone happy,” Dobbs said.
LINKS TO LEARN MORE
https://www.barharbormaine.gov/291/Parks-Recreation-Committee
https://barharborstory.substack.com/p/proposed-dog-park-site-explored-monday