TENAFLY, N.J.—The dogs had their day July 15 at Tenafly Borough Hall.
After an hour-long debate on two dog park locations—one previously not discussed by members—the Borough Council voted 4-3 to construct a $50,000 dog park at the 2-acre former Tenafly Swim Club site on Grove Street, which has stood vacant for at least three years.
After a 3-3 vote deadlock, Mayor Peter Rustin, a longtime dog owner, cast the deciding vote and joined council members Jeff Grossman, Daniel Park and Mark Zinna supporting a dog park at the shuttered swim club.
The majority said they favored the location because the closed borough-owned site needed to be rehabilitated at some point and putting a dog park there was a first step to improving it.
Rustin estimated a dog park will be finished on the site by mid-fall, after more than a decade of discussion, delays and dissent by residents on various locations previously recommended.
“I believe we will have a dog park there with nice amenities,” said Rustin after the vote and public comment from 13 residents.
Zinna said he calculated seven of 13 speakers favored the former swim club site, which he previously advocated for.
Rustin said he did not believe it would cost more than $50,000 to construct a dog park at the site.
Rustin said the future dog park will open at dawn and close at dusk, and will be self-regulated with dog park rules posted.
He said he wasn’t sure if bathrooms would be available and said future council consideration of rehabilitation efforts will likely occur soon with full consideration by council members.
Councilman Max Basch suggested he would assist efforts to improve the site by deciding on rehabilitation priorities for local Open Space funds.
Previously, council members have strongly disagreed over appropriating Open Space funds for restoring Pfister’s Pond at Tenafly Nature Center and a new synthetic turf at Municipal Field.
Another site proposed
Another potential dog park site at Riveredge Road and Jefferson Avenue—initially proposed and rejected following a public meeting in 2008—was raised anew and supported by Councilmen Maxim Basch and Venugopal Menon and Councilwoman Lauren Dayton.
Dog park ‘will complement’
“The dog park will complement whatever we put there,” said Rustin, and he called the move “a first step to making that a beautiful park.” He said the alternate location at Riveredge and Jefferson was “very congested and near kiddie parks”—two major concerns previously raised that led to a dog park not being located there.
The swim club site will include two fenced in areas for large and small dogs. Large dogs will run inside an 80-foot-by-80-foot space and smaller dogs in a 40-foot-by-40-foot space.
Both alternate sites were strong candidates due to not being near residential neighborhoods.
Dayton said she supported the Roosevelt Commons site at Riveredge and Jefferson due to almost 34,000 square feet of space, no nearby homes, and existing shade trees, benches and walkways to get to nearby downtown.
At a late June meeting, council members appeared to narrow their choices between a proposed site on municipal property off of Foster Road and the former swim club site.
A contingent of Foster Road homeowners, however, expressed opposition to a nearby dog park, citing concerns with traffic, parking and noise from nearby emergency sirens affecting the canines.
‘Less upsetting’ to homeowners
Dayton said she favored “the right decision for our residents who would like a dog park in a logical location with less upsetting of homeowners…if it takes one more month I prefer to do that,” she said.
When Dayton raised swim club concerns about alleged on-site contamination from asbestos pool tiles, Rustin said no one knows whether asbestos pool tiles are present, but should that be discovered in the future, pool removal costs will increase.
Meantime, he said, fencing will be placed around the unused pools to prevent access.
When Grossman and others suggested “temporarily” siting a dog park and then moving it to the swim club site, Rustin noted a just-concluded debate July 15 about allocating funding for street repairs. Most members agreed funding did not exist for considering a “temporary” dog park.
Grossman noted he wanted to turn the swim club into a showplace, and both Zinna and Rustin said investments are needed to rehabilitate the property sooner rather than later.
Zinna said the dog park should be placed at the former swimming pool and a future public meeting held on setting priorities for swim club site rehabilitation and possible Open Space appropriations.
Public concerns
During public comment, one resident suggested having the dog park near Foster Road or a site in Roosevelt Commons could lead to owners walking away from their dogs to go to a nearby library or baseball field.
A Kent Road resident criticized members for creating a dog park “for a very small group of people” when other priorities such as road repairs comprise an emergency and not building a dog park.
“There’s no consensus on what we should do, we’re just plugging a hole” by building a dog park, he said, adding he was “opposed entirely” to spending $50,000 on a dog park.
A Norman Place resident called the swim club site “a liability” and said residents prefer a site near downtown, which will be used more frequently by dog owners.
