Trial period for cycling, off-leash dog areas in Oakmont’s Dark Hollow Woods proposed |

Trial period for cycling, off-leash dog areas in Oakmont’s Dark Hollow Woods proposed

Michael DiVittorio
Tribune-Review file photo
Oakmont is considering a trial period for off-lease dogs and bicycles in Dark Hollow Woods.
Tribune-Review file photo
A sign at Dark Hollow Woods in Oakmont reminds users that dogs must be on leashes.

Dark Hollow Woods in Oakmont may be split in two as part of a compromise to make it more dog- and bicycle-friendly.

Borough recreation board member Ryan Erlich proposed council grant a six-month trial period from May 1 to Oct. 31 to test off-leash times and cycling in the woods near Crystal Drive.

The current policy prohibits bikes in the park and dogs from roaming free.

“Our intention is (to) come up with something that accommodates all those residents that want off-leash, but also accommodates those people who don’t want to run into off-leash dogs,” Erlich said.

The park would be split in two for dog owners with off-leash times from dawn till 1 p.m. and on-leash from 1 p.m. to dusk in its southwest section, and the opposite times in the northeast section.

Bikes would be permitted throughout the park after 3 p.m. weekdays and all day on weekends and holidays.

The original proposal offered in December stated dogs would be allowed off-leash from sunrise to 11 a.m. and from 4 p.m. to dusk daily throughout the park. The bike proposal remained the same.

Erlich said he received a lot of feedback on the proposal at a Jan. 16 recreation board meeting, and believes the updated proposal is a solid compromise.

“We had probably 50 people show up, if not more,” he said. “We got some really good public comment. I think we got to a better place because of it.”

Most of the responses at the board meeting were positive. Some were concerned about the time schedule for the whole park in the original proposal.

“Everyone’s got their own schedule, so, if you set specific times, you’re going to inconvenience someone on any side of the fence,” Erlich said about the feedback. “By splitting the park into two, you can come any time of the day whether you want to do on-leash or off-leash and there’s a spot for you.”

An ordinance that would have permitted dogs off-leash in Dark Hollow Park was presented to council in 2014. It passed via 4-3 vote June 9, 2014, according to borough meeting minutes.

Council then voted in Nov. 11, 2014 to permit only leashed dogs in the park.

There are signs in Dark Hollow to remind dog owners to keep them on a leash and to clean up after them.

Council President William Benusa said he supports the new proposals, but has some safety concerns when it comes to cycling along the trails in the northern side of the park by the borough’s Fairways neighborhood. There is at least a 4-foot drop in that area.

“I have really big concerns over having bicycle people ride on that small piece of property,” he said. “You can walk your bike over there no problem. A small kid should not be on a bicycle trying to navigate that.”

Erlich said a walkthrough is planned for March 15 with borough park maintenance director Bob Springer to examine Dark Hollow safety and maintenance issues. Council members suggested having Jim Yurek, Oakmont’s bike patrol officer, assist in those efforts.

Erlich said he would be open to that idea, and plans to discuss the proposal further at the April 17 recreation board meeting. There is no timetable for council to act on the proposal.

Michael DiVittorio is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Michael at 412-871-2367, [email protected] or via Twitter .

Categories: Local | Plum
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.