Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parks Access topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge city to explain locked gate, safety and access problems at Green Park dog exercise area
Summary
Several Gaithersburg residents told the mayor and council they were surprised by an unannounced reconfiguration of Green Park’s dog exercise area that locked a mid-gate and created separate 'small dog' and 'large dog' gravel sections, leaving small dogs without ready access to water and forcing large‑dog users to cross muddy grass paths.
Gaithersburg residents pressed the mayor and council on April 20 to investigate recent, unannounced changes to the Green Park dog exercise area that users say have created safety and accessibility problems.
"That gate has now been locked and so there are now two separate areas each of approximately 8,500 square ft," resident Deborah Spagnola told the council, saying the split leaves one side signed for small dogs and the other for large dogs. She said the large‑dog area is now only reachable by walking on a grassy path that is closed November through April, which she and other users expect will increase the risk of dog fights and aggression when the grass is unavailable.
"So we are worried that there will be more dog fights, more dog aggression as people have to walk along the fence where the dogs are inside," Spagnola said.
Other speakers described muddy, swamp‑like conditions on the path to the large‑dog area and said the small‑dog side no longer has access to the gravel‑area water fountain. "There's no paved path in for people with large dogs," Stephanie Fitz said on Microsoft Teams, adding that the small‑dog gravel area floods in winter and that the large‑dog gravel area lacks sufficient space for all large animals. Fitz also warned that newly installed trash cans lack lids, creating standing water and a potential mosquito issue.
Council members asked residents to email staff so the city could follow up. The mayor and staff indicated they would examine the changes and requested affected users to provide more information via email so staff (including the city manager) could investigate and respond.
What the council can do next: Council staff invited users to submit written concerns and contact specific staff members for follow‑up. The public comments on April 20 did not produce an immediate direction or formal motion; instead, staff said they would review the site and report back to the council.
The city did not provide an on‑the‑record explanation at the meeting for why the gate was locked or the reasoning behind the subdivision of the gravel area; councilmembers and staff advised residents to follow up in writing so officials could investigate and respond.
Ending: City staff said they would follow up after receiving emails from residents; no formal action was taken at the April 20 meeting.
