34 South Main St., Attleboro, MA - Directions - (508) 222-7000
Home News Sports Features classifieds milestones services photos tvlistings cars jobs realestate subscribe
News

Another dog fight erupts over park in Foxboro



Playing at the park Devin, top, intercepts a pass intended for Max, bottom, by his owner, Anita Kloss of Foxboro during a romp in the Foxboro Dog Park. (Staff file photo by Martin Gavin)




FOXBORO - The town's dog park continues to draw controversy, with the latest heat involving the actions of a conservation commissioner.

Long-time conservation commission member Allan Curtis was criticized after the commission's chairman disclosed that Curtis sent a personal letter on commission stationery seeking an outside conservation group's legal help against the board of selectmen in the dog park dispute.

The action so angered first-year Selectman Paul Mortenson that he called for Curtis' removal from the panel. No other selectman took up Mortenson's recommendation and Curtis, the commission's vice chairman, will remain.

Mortenson and others have said part of Curtis' letter distorted the history of the opening and closing of Cocasset River Park. Mortenson has said Curtis' letter also implied a link between the abutting Milton Lane neighborhood and the vandalization of the park.

Mortenson added that Curtis in effect and falsely linked Milton Lane resident Don Baker, a local builder, with the vandalism, and that at the very least Curtis owes Baker an apology.
Curtis has refused to appear before selectmen to discuss the issue.

"I would sincerely hope, based on Mr. Curtis' extensive history of dedicating countless hours to the town and with his admission of error and apology to the conservation commission, that we can move beyond this one indiscretion and consider this issue closed," conservation Chairman Robert Boette wrote in a letter he read during Tuesday selectmen's meeting. "We need to rebuild our working relationship and resolve the more pressing issues at hand."

In his July 1 letter, Curtis asked the Massachusetts Association of Conservation Commissions to provide "legal aid" in superior court if selectmen direct Town Manager Andrew Gala to close the Foxboro Dog Park.

Baker, a plaintiff in a current suit seeking to close the dog park, was present with his attorney, Edward Valanzola, who said the town should write to the MACC and formally withdraw Curtis's request for legal aid.

The town's swimming facility was located on conservation land at the park from the 1960s until 2000, Curtis wrote.

"It was closed due to continuous vandalization of the gates and bathhouse," Curtis wrote. "This vandalization dramatically increased after a small local builder constructed 8 houses on a new street called Milton Lane which runs parallel to the park. The swimming facility was forced to close. Once closed the vandalism completely stopped. This is the only building in Foxboro that was consistently damaged."

Gala, Police Chief Edward O'Leary and Selectman Mark Sullivan all indicated disagreement with Curtis' account.

Gala said the swimming place was close primarily because of the high levels of coliform bacteria in the water. O'Leary said much of the vandalism of the structures occurred after the park closed.

Mortenson earlier said an issue that needed to be cleared up is whether Curtis's letter to Massachusetts Association of Conservation Commissions Executive Director Linda Mack, written on Foxboro Conservation Commission letterhead, spoke for the commission or for Curtis alone.

"The letter was a personal letter that was mistakenly put on Foxboro Conservation Commission letterhead," Boette wrote last week. "The Conservation Commission did not review the letter or vote to authorize sending the letter to the MACC."
Boette reported that Curtis has been a volunteer for the town for the last 35 years, as a recreation department and commission member.

 


*Member ID:
*Password:
  Forgot Your Password?
 
View Comments » No comments posted. « Hide Comments

brwmstr wrote on Aug 21, 2008 7:40 AM:

" and yes, the 30' buffer that was cut out by the home owner would have made a huge difference in the impact from the park. "

brwmstr wrote on Aug 21, 2008 7:37 AM:

" No I would not want it in my back yard, but if I moved into a house that a abutts a 50 year old recreation park, I would expect there to be activities on going there. I love these people who move into an area and then complain about it. The dog park isn't the only thing the abutters complain about. They are constantly complaining about anything and everything that happens down there, from soccer to softball to little league to the dog park. The abutters don't set policy on public land. If the plaintiffs had any case against a dog park on conservation land, they would have gladly gone to court on Aug.6th and the park would have been closed, unfortunately for them, they would have lost because there are literaly hundreds of dog parks on conservation land. The abutters sound just like the new residents living down on Payson Rd. They are calling the police complaining about the noise coming from the midget football field. Maybe they should sue the town, right??! By your logic, you wouldn't want a football field in your back yard. "

jay875 wrote on Aug 20, 2008 11:24 PM:

" Brwmstr lets look at what you are saying here. You make a statement " I guess the question should be, are the abutters really lacking in the ability to coexist with humans?? " I guess they are not since the 8 or 9 owners got togather talked over this park for an extended period of time, plus they seem to show up at meetings to face this issue. As a group they form this lawsuit because they want peace and quite in there neighborhood. The picture was taken in the winter time so there are no leaves on the trees. With or with out leaves on these trees would you still hear the dogs barking?? and you cant tell me these dogs dont bark even though there are signs posted for the owners to keep the dogs from barking.
There was one question that you didnt answer and that was "Would you like this in your back yard?" simple question "

brwmstr wrote on Aug 20, 2008 7:38 AM:

" "Do we really need this dog park in Foxboro", the answere is simple, no. Nor do we "need" the booth playground or camp St. Augustine or the Ahern field or any of the dozen or so other community areas. The dog park is about more than the dogs, it is about the owners. It is about the group of people who bring their dogs done to small fenced in area where they can let there dog socialize with other dogs while they make new friends and talk with old friends. Yes, everybody could let their dogs run in their back yard, but where is the socialization in that. What are you saying, we should all become shut-ins and never leave our property?? That is exactly what the rest of the country thinks of us, that we are anti-social people who stay in their back yards and are not freindly to strangers. That is why I think Kevin H. statement is so funny, the dog park is about HUMANS interacting more than it is about the dogs. I guess the question should be, are the abutters really lacking in the ability to coexist with humans??
I saw the picture of the house in the background. The thing is A-that is a winter photo, the trees all grow in in the spring and the park is sparsely used in the winter and B-the previous owner of that house cut out all of the mandatory buffering trees between the property and the park "

jay875 wrote on Aug 19, 2008 10:47 PM:

" Do we really need this dog park in Foxboro? This is embarressing that this town is fighting over this. We dont live in a city, most everyone in this town has a back yard!!! We'll If you look at the picture above and you see the two dogs playing... look in the back round what do you see? One of the houses on Milton Lane. Is this really fair to them? be honest would you really want this in your back yard? I'm sure you wouldnt either. I'm not for this lawsuit that they have pending and I'm not for this dog park. Let's make it easy on this town and close the park and this will also close this lawsuit once and for all!! "

dogparklover wrote on Aug 18, 2008 4:56 PM:

" Oh, Kevin H - you have it quite wrong as most park opponents due. The dog park supporters co-exist very nicely with humans - why do you think we're trying to keep this wonderful park open - there have been many friendships made there. It is the abutters that don't play well with others. "

cassidy29 wrote on Aug 18, 2008 2:24 PM:

" Kevin, you don't live in Foxboro. You live in Attleboro. So why don't you butt out. OKTHANKSBYE. "

kevin h. wrote on Aug 18, 2008 1:02 PM:

" I wonder if you dog people are really lacking in the ability to coexist with humans. "

brwmstr wrote on Aug 18, 2008 10:31 AM:

" I just wonder if he realizes just how much of an idiot he is making of himself. He really should be more focused on other MORE IMPORTANT issues. I do remember him promising to "re-negotiate" the Patriot place deal. How is that going?? "

brwmstr wrote on Aug 18, 2008 10:19 AM:

" well, we did see Mr. Baker and other plaintiffs, on the common every week-end, holding Mortinson election signs. I wonder what promises were made!! and I have no problem with him promising the abutters he intended to close the dog park, I just wish he was had the integrity to be honest with the town when he was asked directly his stance on the dog park. He lied and said he would "compromise" the situation. "

dogparkpatron wrote on Aug 18, 2008 9:24 AM:

" Mortenson seems to be a one-man wrecking crew as far as the dog park goes. He defends Baker as if it was his job, and if I'm not mistaken, it's Valanzola's job, not the BOS' jobs to do this.
Mortenson even feels the need to try to upend the ConCom due to what he feels is a slur upon his friend, Baker. Apparently the rest of the selectmen aren't with him on this, yet he continues in his attempts to disrupt this town. He needs to watched and held accountable!
I thought he was elected to represent the Town, not just an elite few. "

brwmstr wrote on Aug 18, 2008 9:08 AM:

" Who cares about a letter sent to MACC by Mr. Curtis. His recollection of the events surrounding the extended closing of Coccasset river park are right in line with many other people. He did not accuse anyone of anything, he mearly put out a time line and let others draw their own conclusions. The facts are, never, before the houses on Milton lane were built, was there vadalism like there was after the houses were built. And once the bath house was destroyed, it became very clear that there was no money to re-open the park, the vandalism stopped. Who directly benefitted from the park being closed?? Connect the dots and you can see why Mr. Curtis' letter is so upsetting to the abutters. Guilty conscience anyone!!
Mr. Mortinson should be ashamed of himself, calling for the removal of Mr.Curtis. Mr. Curtis has only volunteered the last 35 years of his life to Foxboro, that's almost as long as Mr, Mortenson has been alive, and about 25 years longer than he has lived in Foxboro!! But you're right Mr. Mortenson why does Foxboro need men like Mr. Curtis....grow up already!! "


*Member ID:
*Password:
  Forgot Your Password?
 
 or