Last modified: Friday, August 15, 2008 1:06 AM EDT Foxboro delays on dog park decision BY FRANK MORTIMER SUN CHRONICLE STAFF FOXBORO - Selectmen have postponed a decision on whether to accept either of the conservation commission's proposals to pay attorney Sam Perkins to continue defending the town in a lawsuit brought by opponents of the Foxboro Dog Park. The town's insurer recently told Town Manager Andrew Gala that it will no longer cover the dog park suit, because the plaintiffs' attorney, Edward Valanzola, has withdrawn two of the allegations that triggered the town's eligibility for the coverage. The commission this week voted to ask selectmen to find a funding source to continue to pay Perkins, or to accept a gift from dog park supporters to defend the suit, which has been continued to Dec. 12. Commission Chairman Robert Boette presented the proposals to selectmen Tuesday night. Perkins said the courts generally do not allow attorneys to withdraw from a trial for non-payment of legal fees. He said for now he has a legal obligation to continue to defend the town, and the town has a moral obligation to consider. In response to a question, Perkins said it would cost about $10,000 to $15,000 to defend the case at trial, not counting possible appeal costs. Selectman Paul Feeney said he wants it known upfront that he opposes using town funds to continue the court battle. Chairman Mark Sullivan and member Paul Mortenson agreed. Heather Harding, a dog park co-founder, explained in an e-mail that private donations are available either to make improvements to the park that would reduce the impact on the adjacent neighborhood, or could be used to defend the town agains the case brought in Land Court by some of those neighbors, but the money is not available for both. At the request of the town and plaintiffs who filed suit aiming to shut down the Foxboro Dog Park, a Land Court judge agreed to delay the Aug. 6 trial. Selectmen and the conservation commission are defendants in the suit Valanzola filed in February on behalf of 17 abutters objecting to the dog park as a health and noise nuisance and an improper use of conservation land.