P&Z: Dog Park Debate Continues

By Susan MacEachron

The continuation of the Planning & Zoning (P&Z) public hearing on April 11 regarding the proposed dog park was well attended by Norfolk residents. 

Joel Howard and Cindy Leffell, representing the 11-member Friends of the Norfolk Community Dog Park, described the proposal. Howard noted his involvement with the Norfolk Community Association and said a major consideration in suggesting the park was to create a community asset. He described numerous trips to observe the Salisbury and Egremont dog parks, where he heard repeatedly how much the parks had become community meeting spots.  

Leffell went through the 11 criteria that P&Z considers in reviewing a special permit application and described how their group believes the park addresses each criterion. She reiterated that the dog park would be created and maintained with private funding and located on private land.

P&Z commissioners asked about handicap parking. Howard said they would satisfy any required regulations. Regarding the site, Howard stated that ideally dead and dying trees would be targeted for removal, that the mostly scrub fill would be replaced with grass and that roadside trees would provide screening. 

Letters received by P&Z after the last public hearing were read into the record. The majority of the 21 letters were opposed to the park, and most were written for a second time. There were a handful of letters in support, as well as several asking questions. 

Many who had written letters also attended the meeting and expressed their concerns in person. Most of those opposed to the park are nearby property owners, worried about increased traffic, the potential for parked cars on Westside Road, noise from barking dogs and disturbance of a wildlife corridor. There was also opposition from others who view a dog park as out of character with the rural nature of Norfolk.

Residents in favor of the park see the benefits of having a place where dogs can run off-leash with other dogs. Supporters emphasized the added importance for dog owners to have a place to meet with other community members. 

The final point addressed was the 20-acre requirement for a recreational facility. Chris Shaut, acting chair, said P&Z had consulted its counsel on this point. He read the letter from attorney Michael Ziska, which concluded that the lease as planned meets the requirement because the regulation does not require the facility to have access to a full 20 acres if that amount of open acreage surrounds the proposed park.

After nearly five hours of combined public hearings in February and April, P&Z began its deliberations. Commissioner Jonathan Sanoff said the pros and cons had been debated at length and made a motion to approve the park subject to whatever conditions the commissioners agree upon.  

Zoning Enforcement Officer Michael Halloran described potential conditions P&Z might consider, including specific hours of operation, locating the parking further in from the road and reducing the size of the parking spaces. According to regulations limiting signage in residential neighborhoods, he said the sign at the park entrance could be no larger than two square feet. P&Z discussed how signage regarding use of the dog park might be displayed so that it could not be seen from the road. Halloran also suggested that P&Z require verification from the landowner acknowledging the requirement to keep 20 acres open around the leased two-acre parcel and that any changes could void the special permit.  

P&Z decided to continue deliberations at its May 9 meeting. Shaut reminded them not to discuss the matter among themselves or with others. Ad hoc conversations could be considered a meeting not open to the public, and closure of the public hearing eliminates gathering additional information on the application.