Location and parking issues discussed at P&Z Meeting

By Susan MacEachron

The proposal to create a private dog park, open to all dog owners, on Westside Road south of Mountain Road generated a large turnout at the Planning & Zoning Commission (P&Z) public hearing on Feb. 14. The Friends of the Norfolk Community Dog Park (Friends) applied to P&Z for a special permit to establish a recreational facility. Joel Howard, president, and Cindy Leffell, vice-president of Friends described the group’s plans.

Howard said numerous potential sites were considered, and there were multiple visits to the dog parks in Salisbury and Egremont to observe their operations. He also noted that the chosen two-acre site, to be leased from the property owner, is just under 500 feet from the closest house, which is comparable to the parks in Salisbury and Egremont. The space would include a fenced-in dog run, up to 11 parking spots and possibly a picnic table and benches. 

Howard explained that the creation and maintenance of the park would be funded solely by private donations and not by Norfolk taxpayers. He said that hours of operation would be from dawn to dusk with no plans to light the area. In response to questions from P&Z members, he outlined a plan to contract with a company to periodically empty the waste receptacles and to manage all other maintenance such as snow plowing and mowing. 

The site was described as relatively level, with a natural clearing. When asked whether any trees would need to be cleared, Howard said that primarily dead and dying trees will be removed. In a subsequent conversation, it was clarified that the parking and fenced area will be sited approximately 40 feet off the road with access via a gravel driveway. Trees along Westside Road would remain as a natural barrier, said Howard, who noted that replacements would be planted for any roadside trees that could not be saved.

When asked by a commissioner about the town’s exposure to liability, Howard said the town would have no potential liability, as the land is privately owned and Friends is a private entity. The group estimates it will cost $105,000 to create the park, a sum they are in the process of raising. Once the park is open, the Friends board estimates an annual operating budget of $20,000 to $23,000 will be needed.

Over 40 letters and emails received prior to the meeting were read into the record. Slightly more than half of the letters were in favor. Sixteen attendees spoke, and comments were fairly evenly split between those in favor and those opposed, with a slight tilt to opposition. Torrington Area Health and the Norfolk Fire Department had been asked to review the proposal, and each sent a letter indicating no objection to the plan.

The proposed location was the primary point of contention, although a few letter writers felt the concept of a dog park was out of place in a rural setting. The benefits of having an off-leash spot for dogs to run was emphasized repeatedly by those supporting the plan. Veterinarian Kim Maynard wrote that “a tired dog is a happy dog.” She also highlighted the importance of dog socialization. The opportunity for dog owners to socialize was a frequent comment from those in favor of creating a park.

Several people opposed to the park expressed concerns about potential spill-over parking onto Westside Road, noting that this happens at the ballpark on Mountain Road. However, many also seemed against adding “no parking” signs along Westside Road. The special permit application includes off-road parking for up to 11 cars. Howard said they would level the area beside the dog park and create a gravel parking area modeled on the Curling Club parking lot. If the park attracts more cars than anticipated, Howard noted there was space to add additional parking for up to a total of 19 cars. It was made clear that would require a modification of the special permit.

The bucolic nature of this section of Westside Road and the importance of the area as a wildlife crossing were mentioned a number of times by those objecting to the proposed location. 

Also discussed was potential noise from dogs barking; different views were expressed as to how much barking actually occurs in a dog park and whether it would be heard at nearby homes.

A couple of residents brought up the issue of drug dealing in the Norfolk ballpark and expressed concern that the dog park site would offer an additional haven. Leffell said that she discussed this concern with a former Conn. state trooper familiar with Norfolk. His opinion was that the dog park would be unlikely to attract crime.

Several attendees questioned whether the park would be open only to Norfolk residents. The dog parks in Salisbury and Egremont, both on town owned land, are open to all. Howard and Leffell said the Friends did not plan to restrict access to only Norfolk residents and that there would not be a park attendant on-site.

Howard described how Egremont has recently instituted a system using a QR code to unlock the park gate. He said their goal was to better understand how many people were using the dog park, not to control access. Although discussed, there was no conclusion as to whether a system could be devised to limit access to Norfolk residents.

In response to a question regarding the expiration of the five-year lease, Howard said Friends plans to create a reserve fund to be used to dismantle the fence and remove any other materials whenever the lease ends.

At the end of the meeting, the commissioners decided to continue the public hearing at the March P&Z meeting. Thus allowing any additional questions to be addressed before they make a decision regarding the special permit application. 

The applicants subsequently requested a delay until the April P&Z meeting.