“It feels like we’re just talking around in circles,” said Devlin Elliot, a member of the Springs Park Committee as the group met on Monday evening at Town Hall to discuss recommendations submitted to the East Hampton Town Board earlier this summer concerning changes to the Springs Park.
The public comment section of the evening was fraught with disagreement, raised voices, and interruptions, but by the end of the meeting, the committee and Councilman Ian Calder-Piedmonte, the town board’s liaison to the group, had found some answers.
Many at the meeting had strong opinions about the recommendations that Neil Kraft, chairman of the Springs Park Committee, had sent to the town board. They included the addition of a small-dog area in the park, the removal of invasive species, limiting parking for East Hampton Town residents, and that the park be monitored by the Department of Animal Control on occasion. Drawing the most ire was the proposal to add a small-dog area.
The idea was to provide an enclosed space where people could take their smaller dogs if they are worried about larger, more aggressive dogs in the larger park. Additionally it was described as a space where older people would be safe from dogs that could knock them over, as has happened in the park before.
Most people in attendance had no issue with the broader concept of a small-dog park but there were differing opinions on the details, namely, where that new space should be, in a separated area inside the park or in a different space adjacent to it. People also wondered what it would look like and how it should be cordoned off.
Robin Dictenberg of Springs said that she has been going to the park for almost 15 years and described her experiences going there with an older dog and occasions when she had been hurt there. “I still go to the park,” she said, “because I realized that you can’t control everything. If you’re willing to take the risk just go.” She also said that if the town decides to create a small-dog park, “I would like the input of people that actually use the park, that have a dog, and that understand dog behavior.”
“My goal here is to bring this to a town board work session, where all five board members can sort of weigh in with your comments,” Mr. Calder-Piedmonte said. Among those comments will be a petition presented by Barbaba Feldman, one of the leading voices opposing some of the proposed changes in the park.
“We have 200 people here that say they have no problem with a small-dog area,” she said, “but we would like it outside adjacent to the existing park so that the existing park is not changed.” Ms. Feldman then told the councilman, “People feel very strongly about this, we gave it to you,” she said, gesturing to Mr. Calder-Piedmonte, “you saw the comments and you saw what people said.”
Mr. Calder-Piedmonte said he had “read the petition exactly as it’s worded. I’ve seen the signatures and the other board members have as well. When we decide whatever we decide about the park, that will be part of the information we use.”
Also tackled at Monday’s meeting was the proposed removal of invasive species in the park. People were worried that too much could be cleared from the park, leading to a change in its aesthetics. It was even rumored that the plan was to clear the park completely.
“There was never, ever an intention to clear-cut the park,” Mr. Kraft said.
Scott Wilson, the town’s director of land acquisition and management, presented a potential way forward. “We could do a test area,” Mr. Wilson said, “we could choose a half an acre and just cut out the species that shouldn’t be there.” He added that “the canopies will immediately breathe a sigh of relief and be allowed to grow a little more full.” The committee was widely receptive to the idea, as preserving the shade and natural look of the park is a priority.
Not everything was solved at this meeting, but the discussion fostered ideas that will be taken up by the town board in the future.
“I just want to thank everybody for being here, I think at times it got a little bit maybe heated but the benefit of a public discussion is to come up with better solutions,” Mr. Calder-Piedmonte said, adding that “maybe not everyone will be happy in the end, but certainly having the feedback is good and I think if we can keep this conversation constructive going forward we’ll all be better for it.”