Updated: Proposed Dog Park Site Explored Monday
Town Meeting Tonight, Sidman Response, Traffic Delays Tomorrow, Acadia Programming
This story has been updated to include the town attorney’s opinion about the deed.
BAR HARBOR—The Parks and Recreation Committee met at the town athletic field Monday night to tour the proposed layout of the potential location for a dog park. The outdoor meeting was damp with some occasional drizzle but still drew about two dozen attendees.
Committee Chair John Kelly called the meeting to order just as the first few drops of rain fell at 4:32. The first order of business was public comment. Attendee Jane Boynton asked if there was any update on the Glen Mary pool rebuild. Interim Town Manager and Finance Director Sarah Gilbert spoke up and stated that the town was currently talking with the Village Improvement Association (VIA) about a ten-year lease extension for the Glen Mary property which is owned by the VIA. Once the extension is signed the town can move forward with planning for a new pool with greater confidence.
Kelly said that monies for the maintenance of Glen Mary Pool had been removed from FY 2025 budget. Kelly also stated that town meeting would be the place to try get that money put back into the budget if any community members wanted to pursue that. That meeting is tonight, June 6.
This morning, Gilbert stated that currently in the CIP budget for Glen Mary there is $118,073 with additional FY24 funding of $27,000, which is part of the expenditure voting at tonight’s town meeting.
Gilbert then said that she had spoken with VIA President Dick Cough about the town possibly having some contingency money to complete some tree work at Glen Mary Park.
The three committee members present, Kelly, Vice Chair Greg Veilleux, and member Jeff Dobbs, quickly approved the minutes from the May 1 meeting and adopted the agenda for this evening.
Kelly then explained to the crowd that tonight’s meeting was a site visit so that the committee members could view the proposed layout of the dog park and learn about the overall plan. The representatives of Friends of Bar Harbor Dog Park in attendance were Enoch Albert, Liz Cutler, and Jeff Miller.
Albert then led the contingent to the dog park access area which is on the existing footpath that runs between the basketball court and the batting cage. Albert said that they are planning on improving the footpath.
Just behind the batting cage is where the entry gate would be located. The gate would be a double entry gate style with a small vestibule. A dog owner would enter the first gate and then depending on the size of the dog would enter one of two second gates. One gate would lead to the much smaller small dog (25 pounds and under) portion of the dog park and the other gate would lead to the big dog section which takes up the majority of the approximately half-acre proposed site.
Kelly asked about the plan for trees and Albert explained that the larger trees with orange marker tape wrapped around their trunks were inside of the dog park fence boundary and would not be cut down. The majority of the smaller trees within the fence boundary would be removed. They have not yet spoken to an arborist about exactly which trees should be removed vs allowed to stay.
Kelly then asked if there would be any ground leveling for the build on the uneven areas. A representative said no.
A man later asked if any soil testing was needed during the process. Kelly explained that without any new ground disturbance, the soil is already being used by humans and dogs and no testing would be needed.
Albert then moved the group to the southwest corner of the site. The fencing running from front to back on the west side of the dog park would cut across a well-used foot path that runs from the right-of-way off of Cromwell Harbor Road through a short section of woods to the grass that abuts the dirt parking lot off of Main Street, effectively cutting off access to the footpath.
Kelly asked how people would access the eastern side of the athletic fields if this footpath was cut off and Miller responded, “Walk around the fence.”
Kelly then asked about what the ground cover might be. Miller responded that it would be woodchips and Kelly asked if that was for the entire ground area. Miller stated that time will tell and they will start with woodchips in the non-grassy areas and see how well the grass holds up.
There was then discussion about building permits and Miller responded that the only planned activity requiring a building permit would be the fence installation. Kelly asked if Code Enforcement Officer Angie Chamberlain has been out to the site and Miller replied that he was not sure if she has actually been out but that they had just met with her.
Jay Hanscom asked if the group could please note how close this southwest corner was to the property owned by the Buzzell family.
From this southwestern most stake, the fencing would then run through the tree line, at varying depths of foliage, to the southeastern most stake in roughly a straight line. Miller explained that the fencing will be as straight as possible depending on what kind of underground barriers the fence installers ran into.
The committee, presenters, and audience then moved towards the southeasternmost corner stake. As the group moved through the wood line, two ducks ran away from them heading back towards Cromwell Brook.
During the walk, Kelly asked Albert how far the southern fence line was from the property line of the Buzzells’ property. Albert responded that it was 85 feet and Hanscom responded that it was 75 feet.
Kelly then asked Albert what their plans were for view or noise mitigation. Albert responded that on the plans there were some planned plantings for viewshed mitigation. A woman then asked about noise mitigation. Hanscom stated that vegetation does not help with sound and only distance does.
Kelly then asked how far it was from the southeasternmost stake to Cromwell Brook and Albert replied that it is 100 feet from the stake to the bank of the brook.
The group then made their way back to the area near where they had first gathered, which is the northeastern most stake. This stake is close to the dirt parking lot off of Main Street. Miller explained that in the fence on this side would be a vehicle access gate that would only be used to allow vehicles access to the dog park for maintenance. This immediately drew comments from the crowd about how the town would be forced to maintain the dog park, adding expense to an already burgeoning town budget.
Attendee Mark Leonardi then brought up a statement that had been made by a baseball coach who was wondering about foul balls being hit into the dog park. Apparently, it is common for 20-30 foul balls to be hit towards the south and into what would be a part of the proposed park per baseball game. The question was, who would be retrieving the balls? Are kids expected to enter the confines of the park to retrieve the balls? he asked.
During the meeting, Leonardi actually located two unretrieved foul balls within the shrubbery along the grassy area of the proposed dog park.
Miller responded that they could make a rule that states that the dog park could not be used while games are being played or practices are underway. Miller also added that perhaps they could improve the baseball field backstop as part of the dog park project.
Leonardi also asked about the potential for dogs to be hurt by being hit by foul balls and who would be liable for that. Kelly stated that while that was a good question, this was not the place or the purpose of today’s meeting to discuss such issues.
Much discussion then ensued about rule making, rule enforcement, and who would be responsible for enforcing the rules. Hanscom made the statement that at the last Parks and Recreation Committee meeting the statement was made that the basis of enforcement would be based on user enforcement.
Hanscom said, “That is a fool’s errand.” Hanscom said that user enforcement would create conflict amongst the users.
Leonardi brought up the deed for the athletic fields and how he feels that a dog park does not fall under the restrictions of use as set forth in the deed. Kelly stated that the town is aware of the covenants and that the town’s attorney says, “That the dog park could be interpreted as consistent with those deed restrictions.”
Kelly forwarded the attorney’s letter about the deed on June 6.
Rob Benson then asked if there are best practices in terms of siting proximity to ballfields, youth sports, streams, residences, and things like that? Have they all identified them and have they all confirmed them, he wondered.
Kelly responded that here is nothing that is black and white and that he has looked at dozens of dog parks and while there are some consistent themes, they are not absolute.
Susan Stanley then asked about users of the dog park parking in the athletic fields parking area or the dirt lot off of Main Street and simply allowing their dogs to jump out of the vehicle without a leash and run to the entry of the dog park. Stanley expressed concern about the safety of other users of the athletic fields when dogs were allowed to run off leash. She also expressed concern about non-residents abusing the rules of the dog park and not caring that they are hurting the experience for regular users.
Kelly stated that dogs already run off leash in the athletic fields, as was proven by a visitor and her dog off leash in the background while this conversation was taking place. Stanley responded that she understands this, but the presence of a dog park will compound the number of dogs coming to the athletic fields thereby compounding the number of opportunities for dogs to be off leash. Kelly stated that while they may not have an answer for her right now, her point was well taken.
There was a lot of conversation about enforcement of the dog park rules, rules that are already in the town’s ordinance, and who was going to be enforcing these rules. Kelly stated that by ordinance, any sign that the town posts is enforceable. Dobbs then stated that ten years ago he sponsored an ordinance that levied a $50 fine to anyone who does not pick up their dog’s waste from property that is not their own.
Dobbs said, “To date, not one person has received a $50 fine.”
The importance of enforcement and who would do the enforcing of everything from dogs off leash to noise complaints from dog noise took up the remainder of the meeting with the exception of a short move by the group to a position where a stake had been removed but was the central point in the northern fence line of the proposed park. Please see the renderings below for a better grasp of the layout and design of the proposed dog park.
Kelly asked about the size of the park and both Miller and Albert responded that it was just about a half-acre. Kelly then asked why not bigger or smaller. Albert replied that the dog parks that he has visited people often comment that they don’t work because there is not enough space for dogs to run. Albert said that a half-acre seems to be about the minimum size for a park to be successful.
Kelly then stated that in Maine he has found many dog parks are smaller than a half-acre and that they seemed to be saying that they don’t work. Albert replied that the only one that he knows about that is smaller than that is in Augusta and that people there say it is too small.
Conversation about the location finished off the meeting and one attendee asked if the search for a viable location has been exhausted. Dobbs explained that the subject of a dog park has been tossed around for years with many locations explored. He stated that this is basically the last piece of property that this group has to do anything on. He did not specify if that included private property.
There was anger expressed over the fact that apparently the views of the opponents for this location do not carry as much weight as the views and opinions of the nearby residents of other proposed locations, Hadley Point Beach, Glen Mary Woods and even some private property locations.
Kelly responded that the original proposal for Friends of Bar Harbor Dog park was the 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 VIA and the lease restrictions and covenants and that the applicants withdrew their proposal based upon what they were hearing in the neighborhood.
Outgoing Town Council Chair and Town Council candidate Valerie Peacock then said that the original Glen Mary proposal did come to the Town Council and they heard that there were concerns at that time. The 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 Council then entered an MOU with the group to say that you pay for it and you put together a plan that you are going to bring back to the Council for approval and that needs to include abutter issues.
Peacock went on to say that at this time they are just trying to find out what the proposal is and what the impacts are and that she doesn’t think the abutters are being ignored and she understands that the abutters feel like the process is going forward. She then said they are not in a place of decision making and haven’t gotten a plan in front of them that they can actually see.
Somebody then asked why the dog park decision is not a ballot issue. Kelly responded by explaining the process of the role of the Parks and Recreation Committee and that they simply make a recommendation to the Town Council. The Council can then decide whether to listen to or ignore the committee’s recommendation and the Council can vote to approve the park or not and it does not have to go to public vote because it is not a land use ordinance change. However, the Council cannot act until the Parks and Recreation Committee makes their recommendation.
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 5:40 after the committee set their next meeting date of Monday, July 17, at 4:30, at the municipal building.
READER REQUEST RE: DOG PARKS
Virginia Smith requested via Facebook message that the Bar Harbor Story include this statement in our most recent article on the dog park, which this is.
Attention dog park supporters!
My friends and I don't agree with the current location. We think it will generate too many complaints and end up being shut down. We worry that if this happens it will ruin the chance of Bar Harbor ever having a dog park.
We have decided to not have a public FB page.
Instead we will have an email group.
Our email is bhdogpark@hotmail.com
You can email any suggestions, comments, or concerns regarding the dog park location, set up, etc.
Your emails will be kept private. We will take into consideration everything everyone has to say.
We may not be able to reply to every email, but please know we are reading them.
Once we review all feedback we will put together a list of location options for everyone to provide feedback on which we will send out with everyone on Bcc (private).
Obviously we will not have a plan to present at the meeting this Monday.
The great news is that we received confirmation that Parks and Recreation will consider more than one location at a time.
Our goal is to create a dog park for everyone to enjoy with minimal disruption for the community.
We are considering public town land, private land, and donated land.
We will not be responding to comments on FB. Please email us at bhdogpark@hotmail.com
For earlier posts on the dog park, see below:
https://barharborstory.substack.com/p/potential-dog-park-location-continues
https://barharborstory.com/2023/05/25/tips-on-visiting-acadia-on-memorial-day-weekend/
https://barharborstory.com/2022/12/06/dog-park-plan-waits-for-updated-agreement/
https://barharborstory.com/2022/12/22/dog-park-might-not-be-mission-impawssible
TO CONTACT THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE AND TOWN COUNCIL:
Emails supporting or indicating a lack of support can be addressed to the following members of the Parks and Recreation Committee, the town’s public works director and the town council (all of these emails are public and on the website and meant for public comments and concerns about this and other town business):
John Kelly: jkelly0709@gmail.com
Jeff Dobbs: jdobbs@jeffdobbs.com
Greg Veilleux: vfamilymdi@gmail.com
Desiree Sirois: desiree.sirois@mdirss.org
Bob Huff: operations@mdiymca.org
Bethany Leavitt: pwdirector@barharbormaine.gov
Town Council: council@barharbormaine.gov
The friends of the Bar Harbor Dog Park request that if supporters email, that they be cc’d at barharbordogpark@gmail.com
The Friends of the Bar Harbor Dog Park Call to Action:
TOWN MEETING
This evening, June 6, is the the town meeting at the Conners Emerson school gymnasium (the building closer to Eagle Lake Road). It begins at 6 p.m.
At the town meeting, the voters will approve or amend the town’s proposed budget. Information about the budget is here.
The annual town meeting warrant is here and below.
TRAFFIC DELAYS
Weather permitting, effective Wednesday, June 7, at 6:00 AM, one-lane traffic will be in place at the intersection of Main and Cottage Streets to accommodate an emergency sewer line repair. Use of an alternate route is advised, and normal traffic flow will be resumed as soon as possible.
Lead Petitioner and Defendant Intervenor Responds to APPLL Statement
We’ve updated our earlier article about APPLL with a response by Charles Sidman, the lead petitioner for cruise ship caps, which passed this November and also the defendant intervenor in the case APPLL vs Town of Bar Harbor.
He was, however, worried that this was not enough to insure that readers would see that statement. We are also including it here. The original story is here.
Charles Sidman said in reaction to the statement,
“The false propaganda and inaccurate statements above, written by a no-doubt expensive public relations firm and worthy of Vladimir Putin’s pronouncements on the necessity of Russia invading Ukraine, is telling in the extreme. Not only does it denigrate the judgment and character of the majority of Bar Harbor’s citizens who want and have voted a vision for their town other than to be the exploited cash cow of a narrow set of businesses local and otherwise, it denies their right to do so according to their own judgment and experience without faux-science studies acceptable to the beneficiary businesses. Further, depending on the manifest non-good will of the exploiters to reach voluntary agreements and acceptable compromises has proven inadequate, bringing us to the present day of direct citizen initiative and self-governance. Finally, following the money always leads to the major actors and motivations.
“As closing commentary from an immunologist, I would like to briefly describe cancer, a subject I studied extensively for many years at the Jackson Laboratory and other top scientific institutions local and worldwide. First, cancer cells care only about their own growth and well being, usually at the expense of the host that they eventually kill. Second, tumor cells try to evade detection and control by mimicking and camouflaging themselves as and among normal body cells. Third, highly promising new modes of treatment called immunotherapy function by revealing these cancer cells as the foreign threats that they are, so that the body’s own defenses can then recognize and reject the invaders. The analogy between cancer and APPLL’s membership and behavior should be evident to all.”
Cultural Connects Program Returns to Acadia
The Cultural Connections program returns to Acadia National Park after a year long hiatus. A full season of programming will kick off on June 14 at Cadillac Mountain Summit, where the Burnurwurbskek Singers, a Penobscot male drum group, will perform traditional Wabanaki songs.
This programming provides visitors to Acadia with the opportunity to learn from Maine Native artists, musicians, and scholars via bi-weekly summer demonstrations. Not only does the Cultural Connections program provide an important platform to support Wabanaki artists and educators, but it also fills a crucial role in communicating Acadia’s diverse cultural history to park visitors.
“The Wabanaki people have a deep connection to and understanding of the lands that now make up Acadia National Park.” says Acadia National Park Superintendent Kevin Schneider. “This program not only centers that knowledge and helps others facilitate connections with this place we love – but reminds visitors that the Wabanaki Nations are still here, and Wabanaki people have an enduring connection to this land.”
All Cultural Connections programs are sponsored by Dawnland, LLC, are offered in partnership with the Abbe Museum, and are free and open to the public. In order to attend the June 14th kick off event, in addition to a park pass, vehicle reservations are needed to access the Cadillac Summit Road. Vehicle reservations can be made at www.recreation.gov.
The Cultural Connections Programs taking place at Acadia National Park this summer begin with:
The Burnurwurbskek Singers
Time: Wednesday, June 14, 2023, 11:00 am – 1:00 pm
Location: Cadillac Mountain Summit, Acadia National Park
The Burnurwurbskek singers are a men’s drum group from the Penobscot Indian Nation at Indian Island, Maine. This group has been performing traditional Wabanaki songs for audiences across Maine and other states for many years. This performance on top of Wapuwoc, or the “white mountain of the first light,” is a cultural demonstration that will captivate audience members of all ages.
In addition to a park pass, vehicle reservations are needed to access the Cadillac Summit Road for this program. You can make a vehicle reservation here: www.recreation.gov
Updated: There was a glitch on our end with the town warrant and we’ve updated the article to reflect this. Another paragraph in the dog park story mentioned the distance from the Cromwell Harbor property. This has been corrected to show it is the distance for the Buzzells’ property. Apologies for the errors.
 | A guest post by
|