Among the more explosive complaints I have heard about the dog park wars in Stonington borough is about one neighbor who reported that a dog owner, while using the waterfront park, actually picked up some dog feces and threw it at her.

This particularly nasty confrontation was reported to me by one of two lawyers who have been hired by Frank Mastrapasqua, an economist for investment banking firms, and Laura Ann Gabrysch, a tax lawyer, who bought a waterfront property on Front Street, beside the park, in 2014, paying $900,000. Their principal residence is in Nashville, Tenn.

The lawyer who told me about the feces-throwing said the dog park neighbor — not his client — who claimed to have been targeted, seems to be reliable in her account of the attack.

His own clients have been accused by dog park users of confronting someone and their dog with a live stun baton. Police, after being called, confiscated and then returned the baton.

Gabrysch told me she has the baton because one of her small dogs was once attacked and hurt by a large dog in Nashville. She said she used it here when a dog appeared to be threatening her husband on their property.

The couple has three dogs of their own but has stopped bringing them to Stonington, they said.

There is a lot of angry conflict occurring at the park, for a village neighborhood with some of the highest property values in eastern Connecticut. One might generally expect a little more civility.

It's actually quieter recently, since First Selectman George Crouse arranged for a new fence between the Mastrapasqua/Gabrysch property and the park area. The Front Street neighbors actually donated the money for the fence, on town land, when the first selectman said it would have to wait until town funds became available. 

Crouse told me he also agreed the fence was necessary because the town's insurance carrier said the heavy use of the space near the jagged rocks of the seawall represented a serious liability.

The fence, while it has quieted the conflict — dogs and people can no longer climb over the seawall and approach the couple's property — and finished one battle, it has not ended the war.

Another step toward resolution of the conflict was a move by Stonington borough officials to exempt the property from leash laws.

As a consequence, the public can now apparently legally use what is considered open space by the town and allow their dogs to run free. There are no leash laws in the rest of the town, so dogs running free on open space is common in Stonington.

I call it a dog park because it has been used that way for many years. Some people call it an unofficial or ad hoc dog park.

The Nashville neighbors essentially contend, although they don't use the word, that it is an illegal dog park. At least they say it never went through the process of zoning approval and the imposition of rules, like landscape requirements, setbacks and hours of use, that would be imposed by a zoning permit.

The land is actually open space because it is beside the sewage treatment plant and is held in reserve in the event the plant needs to be expanded.

It strikes me that the Mastrapasqua/Gabrysch property would be quite negatively impacted by an expansion of the sewage plant, or the installation of any significant plantings, since they seem to derive a lot of sunlight and long water views by having so much open space on the south side of their house.

I asked them if they investigated the property when they bought the house, and Mastrapasqua said they were aware dogs were using the property. But he said their Realtor reported from a conversation with town officials that it was not an official dog park.

It does seem they should have had more than an inkling of what they might expect. After all, there is a sign out front telling people to clean up after their dogs and a dispenser for "mutt mitts" to pick up feces. If you don't want to live next to a dog park, the warning bells were ringing loudly.

The couple has notified the town they plan to sue, that the situation provides a nuisance that the town is responsible for and that it is harming the value of their property and their ability to enjoy peace and quiet there.

They and their lawyers told me the lawsuit is a last resort, because they have had no luck negotiating a more permanent solution with the town.

They said Crouse, in a meeting in February, told them he would set up a committee that would include all stakeholders in the issue, including users and neighbors of the park. The first selectman broke that promise and never set up the committee, they said.

Crouse said he never set up a committee because he was told the town's Waterfront Commission has jurisdiction and so he went to them and asked them to establish some rules. They did, he added, after holding a public hearing.

But Crouse added, when we spoke last week, that he could also request a joint meeting of the selectmen and the Waterfront Commission, with a public hearing, to be sure everyone's point of view is heard.

It struck me that the first selectman is sympathetic to both sides of the argument and would like to move toward compromise and a resolution.

The joint meeting Crouse suggested is a good start.

It also strikes me that the park neighbors make a good point that the park, if it is going to exist, should be properly designated and designed with whatever rules town and borough officials might think appropriate.

They would like to see other locations considered, too, which, given the density of the borough, is probably unlikely.

In the end, I think residents within the borough and maybe within the town would probably overwhelmingly support the continued use of the sewage plant expansion property as a dog park.

Maybe now is a good time to make it official, give everyone a say in a public forum, and settle the matter for good.

I got the sense from the neighbors from Nashville and their lawyers that a newly christened dog park at that location might still trigger a court appeal or lawsuit. But at least then they would be challenging the clearly established intent of the town to have a dog park there.

This is the opinion of David Collins

d.collins@theday.com

Twitter: DavidCollinsct