A vote at last spring's Town Meeting, under Article 36, allows dogs to be off-leash, at certain parks and under certain conditions, in the morning before 9. The details will be implemented by the Parks and Recreation Commission, which held a public meeting last June on the townwide plans. Since then, a group of residents concerned about off-leash activity at Robbins Farm asked the commission to hold another meeting specifically addressing that park.

This meeting was held at Town Hall Auditorium on Thursday, Sept. 16. The following summary is written by the co-founder and president of the Arlington Dog Owner Group, a sponsor of Article 36, and submitted the substitute motion voted in by the 2010 Town Meeting. 

The meeting was facilitated by Rudy Kass, a former resident of Arlington, a retired judge and a professional mediator, who offered his services pro bono to the town. Twenty-one residents attended, in addition to Director of Recreation Joe Connelly, Parks and Recreation Commissioners Leslie Mayer, Nancy Campbell and Jennifer Rothenberg, Town Counsel Juliana Rice and Recreation employee Laura Munsey.

Connelly opened the meeting announcing that the Town Meeting vote under Article 36 has been approved by the attorney general's office and that the purpose of the meeting was not to debate its merits. He requested that participants restrict their comments specifically to its implementation at Robbins Farm. No decisions were to be made that night, but the Parks and Recreation Commission would consider the public input, and Connelly's and Mayer's summary and recommendations, before deciding what the off-leash policy would be at Robbins.

Connelly stressed, too, that these decisions can later be changed, if they don't seem to be working out right, without a new vote by Town Meeting. He explained that there was an agenda based on input they'd received by e-mail, but also that he had passed out index cards for attendees to write other relevant topics that they'd like to have discussed. Then, Judge Kass invited members of the public to offer their comments.

[Note: This summary is arranged by topics rather than chronological order of the public comments.] 

Dogs in the playground

As voted, the bylaw change would exclude off-leash dogs from playground equipment, requiring them to be at least 15 ft away. The original purpose of this "buffer" was to prevent their urination on the equipment. However, this provision has received much attention, with some urging that the "buffer zone" be increased substantially. (It should be noted that, in many similar bylaws, the wording is simply that dogs are excluded from playgrounds.)

An attendee who said her child suffers from severe dog allergies asked how dogs would be excluded from the Robbins playground, which is unfenced. Her husband later spoke up to reiterate their concern about their son's exposure to dogs via playground use. He said he'd seen dogs on the playground and asked what the best recourse would be.

Connelly said that the off-leash bylaw specifically excludes playgrounds and said that calling the Animal Control or police regarding a violation would be appropriate. However, he further pointed out that, currently, on-leash dogs are allowed on playgrounds and the new bylaw would not change that situation.

Amy Goldstein noted that Robbins is a very large park and that the off-leash dog activity is generally at the opposite end from the playground equipment. Connelly said that one item that has frequently been raised is the idea to increase the "buffer zone" between off-leash activity and playgrounds. Two dog owners said that, as far as they were concerned, this zone could be increased at Robbins because it wouldn't affect them in such a large park.

However, Susan Bernhard pointed out that a buffer zone could apply, as well, to sports activities. She noted that the weekend off-leash hours at Robbins are being contemplated to end at 8 a.m. because of organized sports. She asked why the hours couldn't still end at 9 a.m. on weekends, with a large enough buffer zone so as not to interfere with the sports activities.

More restricted hours at Robbins than at other parks

The new bylaw allows maximum off-leash hours from dawn (park opening time) until 9 a.m., subject to further limitation by the Commission. The commission has considered restricting Robbins further so that there are no off-leash dogs when children are walking to Brackett School (generally, 7:30 until about 8:15 a.m.).

Robin Varghese, a dog owner and parent with two children at Brackett, suggested that, with three entrances to the park, it shouldn't be necessary to restrict the off-leash hours in this way. He explained that, just that morning, he had observed a gym class, tai chi, and some off-leash dogs held simultaneously at Robbins and there were no conflicts. He suggested focusing on restricting the off-leash area, not the time. 

Two other attendees, Deborah Goldsmith and Kevin Farrell, essentially echoed this point, suggesting that having such different hours for Robbins as for other parks would be confusing. Goldsmith mentioned that, for a parent who needs to take a child to school before walking the dog, the later hours, ending at 9 am, should be kept whenever possible.

Resident Chad Mikkleson said that Robbins is unique because it is next to a school, so that he feels some unusual restrictions are appropriate.

Dogs near abutters' property

Mikkleson said that he found it unacceptable to have off-leash activity occurring next to houses such as his own, which abuts the park. He felt that it would be more fair to keep dog activity away from the houses, and rotated to various spots across the park, mainly in the middle of the field. He said that this was the kind of solution agreed to by a group that met last year in a negotiation/mediation session. 

Adam Glick said that he, too, had been part of that earlier mediation session. He agreed that there had been a consensus to have off-leash activity concentrated in the middle of the field, but also said that dictating extensions to property lines in a public park was a "slippery slope" to be avoided.

A second park abutter, Greg Perfido, said he has experienced many problems relating to off-leash dogs and that he saw two main issues. These are disturbances from barking and dogs coming into private yards. He feels that the situation has been calmer lately but fears it will get worse again.

Varghese suggested that signage include specific instructions to dog owners to ensure their dogs are kept quiet, but he and Nancy Rhoads both said that they frequently observe dog owners moving their dogs away from the homes and asking other dog owners to quiet barking dogs, in order to be sensitive to the neighbors. Rhoads expressed the hope that the needs of the public and park neighbors could be balanced fairly.

A third park abutter, Roland Chaput, spoke up later, saying that he lives on Grandview and rarely sees more than 10 dogs and has never had an issue of being disturbed in his home by barking. He further offered that the flat area next to his home would be perfect for the off-leash activity and that he would welcome its designation for that purpose. In addition, he commented that the park was created with federal money, and that it is land for public use, which means that the public has the right to its use right up to the property lines.

(This is also relevant to the issue of banning non-Arlington residents, an issue that has come up in the past, though did not appear to be a major concern at this public meeting.)

He further warned that, if there are too many complex rules, they will be impossible to enforce.

Mikkleson said he agreed with many of Chaput's comments, and is open to more compromise. But he reiterated that it's not reasonable to have a dog park right next to a house. Bill Larsen commented that the area mentioned by Chaput and Mikkleson seemed like a good site, and that it had a fence to separate the park from abutters' property. 

Tina Silberman commented that Mikkleson knew when he bought his house that it was next to a park, and that other park activities such as playing children make as much noise as do dogs at play. She said that she lives two blocks from Robbins and did not feel that she should have fewer rights to the use of this public park than another resident living right next to it. 

Limiting the number of dogs allowed off-leash

Perfido said that he'd like to see a limit placed on the number of dogs allowed off leash in the park. He was concerned that there could be up to 50 dogs at any given time. Judge Kass commented that it would be tough to enforce a limit on the number of dogs and that is not at all clear how many dogs would be too many. He told the attendees that he often feels his role as mediator involves "groping for the mutually unsatisfactory solution."

Connelly reminded the attendees that, if it was found that there were too many off-leash dogs causing chaos, the commission could add more restrictions later, with no need for another bylaw change. Amy Goldstein later commented that she had never seen anything near 25 to 50 dogs in the park early in the mornings and, as noted above, Chaput said he lives next to the park and does not generally see more than 10 out there at a time.

Bernhard said good dog owner behavior was more important than the absolute number of dogs, anyway. She suggested that the town provide dog owners with informative literature such as an excellent publication she'd found, and had sent to the commission, from an off-leash program in Arlington, Texas. There was some discussion and disagreement as to whether the bylaw as voted would enable the commission to place a limit on the number of dogs, anyway. The judge suggested that it made sense not to even get into limiting numbers unless a problem showed up once the new bylaw was implemented. 

Need for visual delineation of off-leash areas

Goldsmith said she was glad there would be clear signage, but that it would help to have a visual delineation of the areas where dogs could be off-leash. She suggested low barriers she'd seen used in Cambridge parks might provide this kind of delineation.

Self-policing by dog owners

Perfido said that he knew there were responsible dog owners and he really wants the program to succeed, but he believes that, based on his past experience, it will not. Laurie Caldwell, describing herself as a new resident of Arlington, with a new dog, countered that she has experienced very effective self-monitoring by dog owners she's met in the park. She added that other potential park activities, such as pick-up basketball, could be equally disturbing to abutters, but that it's a park and there are normal noises and activity associated with recreational activities.

Perfido noted that the primary activities he sees in the park are dogs playing and children walking to school, rarely such other activities as those Ms. Caldwell had mentioned.

Bruce Wheltle, who said he's a dog owner who no longer allows his dog off-leash, said that, when he first moved to Arlington, Robbins was not a "free-range dog park," as it is now. He voiced a view that "most successful dog parks are fenced in."

He then took issue with Silberman's earlier comments, saying that he felt abutters deserved special respect relative to other residents. He also commented that the bylaw change is flawed, and that it has been the cause of the problems that exist with dogs today at Robbins. 

In addition, he denied the point made by others that most dog owners are responsible. He said that on weekends he frequently witnesses 20 dogs fighting in Robbins, and that he disagreed with Chaput's characterization that there were fewer dogs and less trouble. He further commented that he often sees 20 dog owners nearby, standing around with coffee cups socializing while their dogs play or fight.

Instead, he suggested, they should be getting more exercise themselves by walking their dogs. Bill Larson commented that, in his experience, 20 people standing around with coffee cups is an exaggeration. He said he tends to use the park earlier than 7 am each day, rarely hears a dog bark, and rarely sees more than 3 dogs there at that hour. 

The meeting adjourned approximately 30 minutes before scheduled, because there were no additional comments raised. Judge Kass complimented the group on the civility of the discussion, joking that he'd had some trepidation going into it. Connelly said that he and others, including Mayer, would review the notes and that updates would be sent to all attendees who had signed the sheet with their contact information.