Neighbors/Critics Of 'Unofficial' Dog Park Feel Ostracized

Imagine sitting in your office attempting to work while outside dog owners are constantly calling to their pets. Imagine you have an outdoor grill and dining area you never use because you’re afraid to sit outside. Imagine your 9-year-old daughter never plays in the backyard because she doesn’t want dogs or people to bother her.

These are all part of the daily experiences Dori Abele, Angela Abele-Gora and their daughter say they endure as neighbors to .

“It’s changed our lives in a profoundly negative way,” Abele-Gora said of the usage of the park as an off-leash area for dogs.

Abele and Abele-Gora live on Front Street in the Borough. Their backyard shares a fence with the .

On any given weekday they say about 50 people and their dogs use the park near the wastewater treatment facility and the Town Dock. On the weekends the number of people who use the park with their dogs reaches 100, they say, adding it is worse during the warmer months.

The two work as graphic advertisers out of their home and say their businesses have suffered. They also say they feel pushed out and even threatened by the community.

“We feel very exposed and vulnerable,” Abele-Gora said, adding she doesn’t understand why the animals have more rights then people.

Technically, the park is a meaning it is open for residents to use how they wish, whether to toss the Frisbee, have a picnic or walk a dog.

At the September meeting of the Waterfront Commission, which oversees the park usage, the commission made it clear that the park is a park not an officially designated dog park. The commission and the residents there agreed the park should continued to be used a passive recreation area.

“What I love about the use of the park is that people are so responsible,” said Gleanna Doyle owner of Animal Behavior, Training, and Wellness.

Still Abele, and Abele-Gora say the usage of the park has changed significantly since Abele bought the home 13 years ago. Abele said the park was not a problem and she even enjoys the noise that you naturally find in a small village where the houses are close together. About two and half years ago, however, Abele said the passive recreation area was completely enclosed and since then the number of people coming to spot with their dogs has exploded.

“There’s no buffer,” Abele said. “It’s constant coming and going. It's not everyone's fault, many of the people who come don't realize it's not a designated dog park."

Over the past few years the two say they have offered several solutions, such as having people enter from the other side, or so it couldn’t be a dog park, but they say each time they have offered an alternative it’s been met with resistance, anger and even people yelling at them. Most recently they proposed building an official park that did not abut residences—the town-owned land by the viaduct, COMO land by the , or the Velvet Mill area.

Doyle, however said she has offered her behavior services to the women whose dogs are often bothered by the dogs in the park and that community members have offered to put up a buffer in the past. And Doyle and First Selectman Edward Haberek Jr., said the park has been completely enclosed for years.

“The consensus seems to be ‘We understand and we’re sorry, but here is how it is, so let’s try to make a compromise,’” Doyle said.

Abele, and Abele-Gora, however, say they want the following questions answered by the town:

• Where is the town's permit for a dog park?
• What is the town's legal definition of a public park and "passive recreation"?  According to Abele the doesn’t have one but The Avalonia Land Trust's definition for "passive recreation" includes dogs on a leash.
• Where is the process that turned the buffer into a dog destination?
• Where is the poll that says most residents want a dog park that abuts residences?
• What protection is the Town/Borough providing for our family that we can live like others in this community?

“We’re in tears over it,” the two said. They have considered moving but ultimately they decided they didn’t want to uproot their daughter and that they can't afford to relocate. Instead they are considering pursuing legal action.

“It’s two different perspectives,” Haberek of a few of the neighbors near the park who don’t like the way the park is being used and the many residents who contact him telling him how much they love the park.

Haberek said the town attorney and Abele’s and Abele-Gora’s attorney are discussing the usage of the park, but that he has left it up to the Waterfront Commission to monitor the park.

“We’re offended that we have to go to court,” Abele said. “We want the proper process put in place to create a dog park in Stonington that isn’t any one’s backyard.”