“It feels like we’re just going around in circles,” said Devlin Elliot, a member of the Springs Park Committee, as the group met at City Hall Monday night to discuss recommendations presented to the East Hampton Town Council earlier this summer regarding changes to Springs Park.

The evening’s public comment session featured numerous disagreements, loud protests and interruptions, but by the end of the meeting, the committee and Councilman Ian Calder-Piedmonte, the council’s liaison to the group, had found some answers.

Many people at the meeting had strong opinions about the recommendations that Neil Kraft, chairman of the Springs Park Committee, had sent to the Town Council. These included creating a small dog area in the park, removing invasive species, restricting parking for East Hampton Town residents, and having Animal Control monitor the park on an occasional basis. The proposal to create a small dog area generated the most uproar.

The idea was to provide a fenced-off area where people could take their smaller dogs if they were afraid of larger, more aggressive dogs in the larger park. In addition, this area was described as an area where older people would be safe from dogs that might knock them over, as has happened before in the park.

Most people in attendance were OK with the concept of a dog park for small dogs, but there were differing opinions on the details. People wanted to know where this new area should be: in a separate area within the park or in another area next to it. People also wondered what it should look like and how it should be cordoned off.

Robin Dictenberg of Springs said she has been going to the park for nearly 15 years and described her experiences with an older dog and the instances she was injured there. “I still go to the park,” she said, “because I’ve realized you can’t control everything. If you’re willing to take the risk, just go.” She also said if the city decides to create a park for small dogs, “I would like to hear the opinion of people who actually use the park, who have a dog and understand dog behavior.”

“My goal is to bring this up at a City Council work session where all five council members can make their comments,” Mr. Calder-Piedmonte said. Those comments will include a petition from Barbaba Feldman, a leading opponent of some of the proposed changes to the park.

“We have 200 people here saying they have no problem with an area for small dogs,” she said, “but we would like it outside next to the existing park so that the existing park is not altered.” Ms Feldman then told the council: “People have very strong opinions on this, we have given it to you,” she said, pointing to Mr Calder-Piedmonte, “You have seen the comments and you have seen what people have said.”

Mr Calder-Piedmonte said he had “read the petition exactly as it is worded. I saw the signatures and so did the other board members. When we decide whatever we decide about the park, that information will be part of the information we use.”

The planned removal of invasive species from the park was also discussed at Monday’s meeting. People were concerned that too much would be removed from the park, resulting in a change in its aesthetic. There were even rumors that the plan was to clear the park completely.

“There was never any intention to cut down the park,” Mr. Kraft said.

Scott Wilson, the city’s director of land acquisition and management, presented one possible path forward. “We could create a test area,” Wilson said, “we could select a half-acre and just remove the species that don’t belong there.” He added that “the tree canopy can immediately breathe a sigh of relief and grow a little more densely.” The committee was largely open to the idea, as maintaining the park’s shade and natural look is a top priority.

Although not all solutions were found at this meeting, the discussion generated ideas that the city council will take up in the future.

“I want to thank everyone for being here. I think at times it might have gotten a little heated, but the benefit of having a public discussion is that you get better solutions,” Calder-Piedmonte said, adding: “Maybe not everyone will be happy in the end, but the feedback is certainly good and I think if we can have this discussion constructively in the future, it will be beneficial for all of us.”