TENAFLY, N.J.—After nearly a decade of discussion and disagreement about where to site a dog park, the Borough Council narrowed its choice to two locations and promised to move ahead at its next meeting
Borough Council members said they would decide at the July 15 meeting whether to go ahead with a dog park plan at the long-discussed Foster Road municipal lot—near Borough Hall—or a new location at the now-shuttered Tenafly Swim Club on Grove Street.
5-1 vote tables decision
Following a 90-minute discussion, at times emotional and strained between residents of Foster Road and two council members, members voted 5-1 to table a decision on which site to choose pending an engineering report from the borough engineer, Andy Hiplolit.
While some residents said the plans for a dog park have been discussed for five or six years, others on an original committee formed in Tenafly to study the issue said it has been nearly a decade since the first discussions and plans emerged.
While Councilman Max Basch, Lauren Dayton, and Venugopal Menon argued in favor of a “centrally located” dog park site off of Foster Road, others including Jeff Grossman, Mark Zinna, and Mayor Peter Rustin argued in favor of placing it at the now-closed swim club, which closed three years ago.
They estimated costs for fixing up the swim club—including fencing around the closed adult pool and filling in the kiddie pool—as similar to the $50,000 dog park budget appropriated for a Foster Road location.
Rustin requested Hipolit prepare a plan for a dog park at the former swim club site. The dog park would consist of two separate dog play areas: an 80-foot-by-80-foot enclosure for large dogs and a 40-foot-by-40-foot enclosure for small dogs.
While at least a dozen residents favored the Foster Road location, many Foster Road residents said there was already too much noise on the block with emergency vehicles, a fire horn, a large sports field, and a nearby playground to contend with.
About 10 to 12 residents, many from Foster Road, expressed disagreement with a decision to move a dog park in close proximity to their neighborhood. Again and again, Foster Road residents said they loved dogs, had dogs, but did not anticipate or deserve a dog park placed near their front yard.
An attorney representing some Foster Road residents said they never received notice of a proposed dog park, cited steep slopes and regrading needed for the site, and ticked off concerns with stormwater runoff and lack of a traffic study as negatives.
Hipolit said no excavation would be required at the swim club property, while some excavation would be required at the Foster Road site.
If either site is given a go-ahead on July 15, Hipolit anticipated the fencing could be completed by end of summer and a facility open by fall.
On one side, Basch, Dayton and Menon mentioned the “dilapidated” conditions at the swim club site, calling the pools a public safety hazard as well as an eyesore.
Dayton said the asbestos tiles on the big pool prevented the pool from being filled in with dirt and the kiddie pool needed to be fenced off.
She said she needed to see an engineering plan and costs to even consider the former pool site.
She said the Foster Road site was selected because the site is centrally located, accessible by foot, close to the downtown business district, and is a more attractive site. Basch cited concerns with parking and public safety at the swim club. Menon said the pool location offers “very little accessibility” and he feared people would not feel comfortable as the site “doesn’t promote a social environment.”
Grossman said the pool property comprises two acres of municipal land “and I’d like to see it used” and he downplayed excuses being offered not to use it as “it’s not central, it’s not safe, it’s not this and it’s not that.”
During public comments, which Rustin allowed during the work session, Foster Road residents repeatedly cited traffic, public safety, nearby first-responders use of the street, fire horns and ambient noise levels as reasons not to site the dog park there.
Other residents who favored the Foster Road location—including two who said they would love a dog park in front of their house—said the site made more sense and was chosen after a long selection process.
A longtime park advocate, Christine Evron, also president of Tenafly’s Chamber of Commerce, said the Foster Road location was best, especially with nearby parking at the municipal lot.
In addition, other Foster Road supporters cited nearby bathrooms in the municipal building and public library, with several highlighting the proximity of the library as an added benefit. It was not clear if there were operating restrooms at the closed swim club.
Andrew Mikesh wondered if additional work required at the swim club would not add up to more than $50,000, the project’s original budget.
He said there are alternate locations besides the swim club and Foster Road which the dog park committee previously vetted, but hesitated to raise them fearing more years of discussion.
“I don’t want to spend another five years going through this…I don’t think it’s [swim club] going to be used,” said Mikesh.
Zinna strongly supported making a decision June 25 to begin work on a dog park at the swim club, and said dog park or not, a decision needed to be made about the shuttered swim club, closed since 2016, and what should be done with the property.
He said a public meeting should be held on rehabilitation of the old pool property.
Rustin pointed out residents made a strong case not to put the dog park in either place.
He said the former swim club “has potential” and placement of a dog park there “will be a first step in making that a showplace.”
As mayor, Rustin only votes in case of a tie vote by council members.