Jennifer Johnson is in her 3rd term as a Representative Town Meeting (RTM) member, from District 9. Previously, she served on the Parks & Recreation Commission. She writes:
Regardless of how one feels about a “dog park,” there is a long-established process for the Parks & Recreation Commission to champion initiatives involving our shared open space.
The PRC clearly followed that process with the recent field-light proposal. Why not for a dog run?
After waiting over 5 hours to speak Monday night, more than 60 residents made clear that this issue deserves a thoughtful process.
The Planning & Zoning Commission already has plenty on its plate. It should not be asked to do the work that should first be vetted by the PRC — including answering basic questions about whether a particular site is appropriate.
And the PRC has already done much of the groundwork. The recently completed, taxpayer-funded $250,000 Parks Master Plan identifies Winslow Park as a possible location for a dog area, but it also specifically identifies Machamux Park, on Greens Farms Road.
Machamux Park (Photo/Andrew Colabella)
Given its size, current use, location, parking, etc. Machamux seems worthy of serious consideration. The plan estimates the cost at $80,000 to $100,000. What remains is to determine the ongoing costs and requirements for maintenance, cleaning, management and enforcement.
Whether Westport residents ultimately want a dog park is a legitimate question. But before we let the dogs out — or put up a fence — we should follow the process.
The PRC should review the recommendations of its own Parks Master Plan, and develop a complete proposal. After it has been publicly vetted and voted on by the full Parks & Rec Commission, bring it to the appropriate town bodies.
Then the P&Z can weigh in.
Winslow Park (Photo/Mark Mathias)
There may be plenty of bones to pick with the idea of a dog park. But asking P&Z to decide now whether dedicated open space at Winslow should become a fenced dog area is putting the cart before the dog.
We have a process. Let’s respect it.
And let’s not leave the Parks Master Plan sitting in the doghouse.
(“06880″‘s Opinion pages are open to all. Email submissions to 06880blog@gmail.com. To support this hyper-local blog with a tax-deductible contribution, please click here. Thank you!)
Very well said and true. The P&Z should not consider a text amendment at this point. The question is…why would they?
I am Chair of the Parks & Recreation Commission (referred to above as “PRC”). It appears to me that our PRC is being accused of dereliction of responsibilities. To wit:
1. The dog run proposal has been discussed at two of our recent public meetings. Questions remain with respect to operations, maintenance, and siting. Yes, there is still quite a debate about “need”. No vote has been taken.
2. When did the PRC vote on the field-light proposal?
3. At Monday’s P&Z meeting, one would have heard Ms. Perillie and Chair Lebowitz (with the Town attorney in attendance) agree the text amendment should come first rather than ask the PRC to fully-vet & potentially approve a project which, as the zoning exists, is not allowable.
4. The members of the PRC are familiar with the Parks Master Plan and its recommendations. It highlights Westport’s limited “open space” so doesn’t it make more sense to consider the potential need and possible sites of a dog run in an area already heavily used by dogs rather than a park with few?
Some situations require thoughtful discussion amongst individuals, departments & commissions on the best process for all stakeholders.
Winslow zoning should remain unchanged as a DOSRD, dedicated open space with no structures and passive recreation. Changing the zoning ordinance makes no sense unless the motive is to clear the way for the ill-advised proposed dog run. No need has been demonstrated and strong opposition has been roused. What the PRC chair is proposing is unfettered access to change the very nature of Winslow based on the whim of his RTM buddy.
This proposal should not be before the PZC. We have NOT heard from the Selectman, or his P&R deputy on this matter. Perhaps their laissez-faire approach is because they know this is a lousy idea.
Winslow is a gem. It is dedicated open space. It is for passive recreation. No structures. We love it just the way it is from a zoning and land use perspective. Put a better perimeter fence along Compo North, then move along.
When the town breaks its promise to dedicated open space, it’s time for a citizen referendum. Dedicated open space is the loftiest of zoning ideals. Don’t desecrate it.
Toni, I actually work collaboratively with David, just as I do with members across ALL boards, commissions and town government, including people I disagree with. That’s how local government should work. If I need help, I ask. If I need a document, I actually contact the person and ask for it rather than work behind the scenes and rely on an ‘rtm buddy’ to get them for me.
Mr. Floyd… In response to your comment to consider possible sites in an area already heavily used by dogs as opposed to a park with a few dogs.
It sounds logical, but in my personal experience, putting a barrier/fence between other free roaming dogs can create aggression. I’ve witnessed aggression in the backyards of homeowners with neighbors who also have a dog.
I have been to many dog parks over the past 10 years with my 95 pound gentle giant. Milford’s Eisenhower Park, New Canaan-Spencer’s Run, Norwalk-Rowayton Dog Park, Easton Dog Park, and a few others in Westchester County. I personally do not like enclosed dog parks, however, if the need arises I will use one out of necessity.
Each of the parks I have visited are either on a separate plot of land converted for the use. They are found in housing neighborhoods, expansive recreational parks such as the New Canaan facility, which is surrounded by racquetball courts and soccer fields. The two parks in Westchester County were in Industrial areas. Each of these parks have limited, if any, interaction between dogs running off leash, even dogs being walked on a leash, most likely due to the aggression that can happen.
To my knowledge, Westport’s Park and Rec has never experienced planning out an enclosed dog park, I might suggest going around and surveying the other towns and how they chose their specific locations.
It becomes very difficult to keep off leashed dogs from being curious about others behind a fence, after all, they are pack animals. In my opinion, since other locations are available, it would serve Westport best to find an area where there is no other dog activity.
I tend to agree with Jen Johnson, i.e. the addition of a fenced in area for small dogs on Winslow Park seems like a subject that first belongs with the Parks & Recreation Commission. However, once again our Parks & Recreation Commission did not, in my opinion, take an obvious first step and ask the P&Z Commission what its view was, namely, should a Text Amendment be written and submitted by Andrew Colabella or would it have been more sensible for David Floyd and Paul Lebowitz to have a conversation. My guess is that Paul and David, Andrew as well, would have agreed that the need and the relevant issues should first be aired by the Parks & Recreation Commission. Thereafter, depending on the outcome, the process of what approvals are required under our Charter would proceed. The absence of such a conversation highlights again my ongoing concern with our “silo” form of government.
David Floyd the request for a fenced dog run is a very recent issue. Would it not be wise to reestablish, under your domain from what I understand ,The Community Garden before PRC starts involving itself in something entirely new?
In what stage of planning is The Garden currently in? I do remember many new officials promising it would lead our town’s agenda yet here we are arguing over strongly lit fields in residential neighborhoods and fencing in deeded open space…
Chris, Erik Barbieri has been working with several of the gardeners on, among other things, a survey, layout, and requirements of a new community garden. As you’re probably aware, the location proposed by the gardeners would eliminate a LL ball field (while requiring the preservation of a joint softball/soccer field) which complicates the process substantially. It continues to be a focus of the Parks & Rec Dept and the PRC–and consideration of the dog run doesn’t impact that at all.
David – if any space large enough to be appropriate for a Community Garden could also house a ball field, just acknowledge that ball fields will always take precedence.
Twenty years of work by the gardeners was sh!t upon by the BOE, the last administration, and the LLSBC.
Garden “leadership” said “support Kevin Christie if you want the garden replaced.” We’re waiting. It ain’t happening. It will just be one excuse after another.
(I’m waiting for the Garden committee to come out in support of Lee Goldstein, next.)
If you don’t give a sh!t, just have the courage to say so. The little league daddies are your priority. We all know it. Put up or shut up. Respectfully.
I am a very active, very vocal gardener. I have heard not a word since Mr. Barbieri’s note to gardeners early this year telling us there would be no garden this year. Nada. Nor from any other. “gardener.” I talk to other gardeners on a regular basis. I have gone to funerals of fellow gardeners, who never had another chance to sit in a community garden.
I’d like to know who the “several gardeners” with whom are the town is talking.
I proposed a garden commission. I volunteered to be a part of the process. I never get a acknowledgement of my notes and ideas. Crickets.
There is no plan for a garden.
Maybe it’s time for a Community Conversation. The first and only one was held eight months ago, on December 17, 2025.
Well, I respectfully disagree with the suggestion that the process is being bypassed. In fact, the comments from David further support why the current approach is appropriate.
The text amendment before P&Z is **not approval of a dog park** It does not authorize construction, select a final location, spend taxpayer money, or bind Parks & Rec to a project. It addresses the threshold zoning question: should a fenced dog area even be an allowable use at Winslow?
David clarified the dog run has already been discussed at two public PRC meetings. Questions regarding operations, maintenance, siting and need remain, and no vote has been taken. The comparison to the fieldlight proposal also raises an important question: when did the PRC actually vote on that proposal?
More importantly, at Monday’s P&Z meeting, Ms. Perillie and Paul with the Town attorney present, agreed that **the text amendment should come first**. It makes little sense to ask Parks & Rec to fully vet and potentially approve a project that existing zoning does not permit.
The PRC is also well aware of the $250,000 Parks Master Plan and its recommendations. While Machamux may deserve consideration, the plan also identifies Winslow as a potential location. Given Westport’s limited open space, there is a reasonable argument that if the Town is going to consider a fenced dog area, it makes sense to examine it in a park **already heavily used by dogs**, rather than automatically shifting the discussion to a park with comparatively little dog use. Further, the setbacks would not make it allowable at Machamux.
**P&Z is not being asked to decide whether a dog park should be built. It is being asked whether the zoning regulations should allow one to be considered.**
If the amendment is approved, Parks & Rec and the appropriate town bodies can continue the public process and address the actual proposal: need, location, size, design, funding, maintenance, management and enforcement. If the amendment is denied, there is little reason for PRC to spend substantial time developing a project that cannot legally move forward.
This is not circumventing the process. It is the various commissions and departments addressing the questions within their respective authority in a logical order.
As Dave appropriately noted, some issues require thoughtful discussion among individuals, departments and commissions to determine the best process for all stakeholders. That is exactly what is happening here.
My third and final comment on this.
The proposed text amendment would desecrate a dedicated open space promise, as RTM member Wendy Batteau has clearly pointed out.
And calling this “desecration” doesn’t make it so. The proposal does not eliminate dedicated open space, authorize development, or approve a dog run. It simply asks whether a limited fenced area for an existing recreational use may be considered.
Reasonable people can disagree, but changing a regulation through the public zoning process is not breaking a promise—it is exactly what the process exists to consider.
A quick note – I didn’t talk about “desecration” but rather about not opening our open spaces for anything but the most serious, necessary reasons.
Mr. Colabella’s proposal may or may not garner the required support from the governing bodies in town. But, relative to this idea, he is following the rules and, importantly, this proposal is getting a good deal of attention. I know Andrew, and he is a stickler for process. He also asks questions and seeks advice about the best way to move forward (see his successful single-use plastic ban as an example).
Our Planning and Zoning Commission appropriately asked for more early involvement, and this is just that. Let’s let the process play out and address the merits of the idea rather than invent conspiracies or attack people who volunteer to serve our town.
“…doesn’t it make more sense to consider the potential need and possible sites of a dog run in an area already heavily used by dogs rather than a park with few?”
No, absolutely does not make sense. Putting a barrier between dogs is courting aggression between dogs, leashed or not. When this project was first conceived to go on Compo S, I was sympathetic to dog owners who would need fencing and I thought all of us who walk here with our unleashed dogs are going to have to get used to not using this area or it will get ugly.
Now I know there are other locations that could be considered and I am left wondering what is the obsession you all have with Winslow? The fact it is heavily used by dogs is exactly why you shouldn’t put a fenced area there. Why won’t the PRC at least assess the other locations for suitability rather than dismiss them outright? Now the new location being considered along Compo N would require every dog owner to walk past fenced dogs from the parking area. Every dog owner inside that fence will be as unhappy about the aggression as those outside it.
Please reconsider and look into the other locations that have been identified.
Laurie, If the concern is that fenced dog areas inherently create aggression, I’m not sure how another location resolves that concern.
It would be a single use location. A piece of land with your planned out dog park, a drinking water source for the dogs, possibly a ladies room and men’s room. Handicapped accessible, parking lot, an area with shade and sun, and some nice benches. Don’t forget to supply poop bags and definitely more than the two waste cans that are offered to us at Winslow. I believe at the meeting, you were told there are 39 other open spaces, you chose one that got shot down right away, and Winslow Park. Out of 39 possibilities, you couldn’t set your sights elsewhere?
Anita,
If it were “shot down,” the pre app would have been rejected. It was given approval. The parks master plan cited two locations, Winslow, which is already dog intended use and machamux park.
There’s shade, dog bags exist and can be added as well as garbage cans. Majority of our parks do not have bathrooms.
If you have a better location, then suggest it!
No action is taken on a pre-app. Nobapproval. No denial. No action.
The onus is on you. Someplace other than Winslow.
All Andy Colabella is doing is following the process. Andy is not trying to “pull a fast one” as he is all about process, procedure, and fair civic debate.
We are lucky to have a civil servant – elected Representative like Andy who cares about our community, and is not afraid to bring an idea forward.
Everyone has a right to an opinion, as the process continues to move through the proper boards, commissions, and committees, show up and let your voice be heard.
Andrew:
No that’s not what I’m saying. At Winslow it would be a mix of dogs outside the fence and dogs inside the fence. My point is that when a barrier/fence is put between dogs aggression can result. At Winslow, lots of dogs would walk by other dogs in the fenced area and they would bark at each other until the walking dog leaves, and then another would come and another, etc. I think dog owners will quickly learn that it’s not a peaceful place to be.
The goal should be to find a place that has only fenced dogs.
RIDGEFIELD, where we moved to escape the Westport hysteria after 40 years in the NYC annex, has a wonderful Dog Park. It is divided into a section for small dogs and large dogs. It is double fenced at the entrance and divided with sturdy metal fencing, a water hose and bowls for the dogs. Treats are discouraged for they cause issues between the dogs. Plenty of benches and a gazebo for the two legged patrons. The dog warden is on speed dial for any aggressive dogs are immediately banned. Easy sneezy but Westport with its incessant need for bureaucratic debate will take years to get anything done.
Jammie,
STOP!!!! Please STOP!!!!
Do NOT turn Ridgefield into Westport.
Respectfully,
Ridgefield does not have an open trail off-leash area like Winslow, though. Many towns opt to build these fenced dog parks instead. I suspect that, like me, the vast majority of the dog owners who currently use Winslow see no need for a small, fenced dog park and would rather just go to the open area at Winslow.
Mr. Colabella’s response states that the process he is pursuing with the Commission to receive approval for a text amendment — one that would initiate a zoning change within Winslow Park to allow for a fenced enclosure — is the proper way to proceed. He further states, “This is not approval of a dog park” (or “dogport,” as it has been referred to), and that any plans regarding need, location, size, design, funding, maintenance, management, and enforcement would be premature prior to the amendment’s approval. These details, he states, will be made part of the public record only after the text amendment has been approved by the Commission. Otherwise, he concludes, it would be a waste of the PRC’s, the Commission’s, and his own time, since without the text amendment, the proposal could not proceed at Winslow. This appears to be correct.
Although this proposal has been discussed in several PRC public meetings, and Mr. Colabella’s stated plan has changed numerous times because of contention with neighbors abutting the original proposed site and with numerous residents and park visitors, the PRC was absent from this discussion. Prior to the P&Z meeting to review the text amendment proposal, four other town departments posted comments, as did several agencies. There were no comments or commentary posted from the PRC. I found this odd, as the PRC has been the primary forum for prior discussions and is the department responsible for the management of the park. Presumably, the PRC will also be the primary party involved in future discussions of the detailed plan, execution, and management of any changes to the park that may result from this proposal.
There have been many comments for and against this proposal, communicated through surveys, letter-writing campaigns, and petitions. While many of these points have been discussed, they are not germane to the text amendment discussion, per P&Z Chairman Mr. Lebowitz. As he stated in the meeting, the Commission’s primary decision criterion is whether this proposal has “value to the community.” During the public meeting, Mr. Lebowitz — after a lengthy 4.5-hour period in which the Commission grappled with prior agenda items — opened discussion on the amendment. Because it was a Zoom meeting he chaired, he was aware that over 60 attendees were waiting to offer public commentary. This was clearly an emotionally charged topic, and the Commission proceeded to give attendees the opportunity to comment. It appears that the Commission has once again inherited a contentious town issue and must proceed with a judgment call, assessing the proposal as it currently exists on its merits as a potential value to the Westport community — not an enviable task.
To provide the Commission with context on the question of community need, two surveys were completed. Proponents of the proposal have reportedly conducted a survey that received “hundreds” of positive statements regarding the enclosure. Mr. Colabella, the RTM sponsor of the proposal, wrote in a “06880” update (July 2026) that “they conducted a community survey with help from ‘06880’ and Westport Moms, and received over 700 responses with 73% supporting a fenced-in dog park.” Unfortunately, this survey is not part of the public record, raising the question of how the Commission — and the public — should evaluate it regarding community need or value. A second survey of over 400 respondents, was published in its entirety as part of the public record and made available to the Commission prior to the review meeting. It contained detailed demographic information (address/neighborhood, park-user vs. non-user, frequency of visits, etc.) and provided executive summaries of key elements that speak directly to the question of perceived community value and need. It concluded that 67% of respondents indicated the enclosure was either not needed or not wanted, and it clearly identified who the respondents were, indicating whether they were direct stakeholders or casual respondents.
The meeting concluded with no approval or denial and was scheduled for further review at the next P&Z meeting in September. Returning to the Chairman’s point — if the Commission must decide the proposal’s merits based on “community value,” it seems it must do so in the absence of critical information. The Commission is aware that any approved zoning change must conform to the requirements of CGS § 8-2 and be consistent with the municipality’s comprehensive plan, and that the Commission must record the reasons for its decision on the application. This raises several difficult questions. The Commission has acknowledged its awareness of the Master Plan, which was unveiled to the public this summer at a town hall. Yet residents still have questions about how this proposed zoning change in Winslow Park relates to that Master Plan, which called for a three-phase rollout over many years. Winslow was identified as a Phase 1 priority, but I have not seen any reference to how this proposal impacts, or is impacted by, the Master Plan. This is something the PRC would be directly involved in and should, at minimum, comment on prior to the Commission’s decision.
Comprehensive Plan Alignment
Does a fenced enclosure fit the town’s stated open space, recreation, and parks goals under its Plan of Conservation & Development? There has been considerable input on this topic, in written testimony and in public PRC meetings, from a broad spectrum of residents. PRC commentary on this question should be available to the Commission — and the public — before a decision is reached.
Breadth vs. Concentration of Benefit
Does the proposal serve the whole town or a narrow interest group? The surveys could help answer this, but since the proponents’ survey is not part of the public record and its methodology has not been published, the Commission would have difficulty relying on it as a data point. Absent PRC commentary, it will be difficult for the Commission to determine whether this proposal represents a community-wide perceived value.
Compatibility with Surrounding Use
What is the impact on abutters — noise, traffic, parking — and what precedent does this set for other parks? In the absence of a formal public plan and PRC commentary, it appears very challenging for the Commission to decide on these questions for a zoning change in a public-use venue. The plan Mr. Colabella has discussed in PRC meetings and other venues has repeatedly changed in response to resident input on many of these elements.
Reversibility and Cost to the Town
What is the capital cost, maintenance burden, liability, and opportunity cost of the space? Mr. Colabella has made clear that it makes no sense to develop a detailed plan prior to an approved text amendment. Even so, these questions should be part of the criteria for assessing the proposal’s potential benefit and value to the community.
Public Safety and Welfare
What does the off-leash conflict data, injury/complaint history, and veterinary or animal-control input show? Both the plan’s authors and its opponents have made many points and counterpoints on these questions. If this proposal moves forward, the proponents still have considerable work to do to substantiate their claims of community benefit on these fronts. At this point, I fail to see how the Commission could make an informed decision regarding the proposals merits and claims of enhanced public safety.
Conclusion
Given the absence of PRC commentary, an unpublished proponents’ survey, and no clear articulation of how this proposal aligns with the Master Plan, I ask that the Commission formally request PRC input and defer any decision on the text amendment until that information — along with the other critical information identified above — is part of the public record.
I don’t have a dog in this fight, but I have a question about dog park usage. Who is the customer? More than 90% of Westport dwelling units are single family homes. With yards. In all our time there, across three homes, all with dogs, not once did we take our dog to the park. We would take our Golden to the beach off season so she could jump in the waves, otherwise they were each pretty happy in their own yards and going on the occasional neighborhood walk.
I love that Westport has preserved a ton of open space, I’m just not sure the highest and best use of any of it should be dedicated to dogs.
I was going to say the same thing but you beat me to it.
Personally, I think the Baron’s property might be a better place for dogs to do their thing it’s already fenced in.
I’ll admit I also don’t understand the draw of the community garden. Each of our three homes had gardens, some more successful than others based on the quality of the fencing.
I live on the UWS now so I get the allure of dog parks and community gardens where none of us have yards, but in the 06880 where 90%+ can do this all at home, what’s the need for dedicated public space?
David, the answer is right there: “community” garden (and “community” park.
Gardening can be a satisfying, solitary endeavor. But the gardeners formed a real community at Long Lots. They educated and learned from each other. They admired each other’s plots. They shared the “fruits” of their labors (and vegetables and flowers), socializing together and watching birds and sunsets. They cheered each other’s milestones, and supported each other through personal struggles.
Similarly, Winslow Park is a place where dog owners AND dogs can gather together. Humans and canines need companionship (and not just of their own kind — dogs meet other people, and vice versa). As with the community garden, friendships form across generations. And if you want to be alone there — but not feel alone — there’s a place for you.
Some people think one of the downsides of suburbia is that people keep to themselves too much, in their own homes and yards. Community gardens and parks are antidotes to that.
Thanks Dan, it was the response I was hoping for.
In my 17+ years as a Wepo adult, as a full time commuter I can count on one hand the number of week days I was home during that time, and most of them were the week of 9/11.
And my weekends were spent raising the girls, so there’s a bunch of stuff I missed that I’m thrilled others enjoy.
Well said Mr Woog. Regardless of one’s thoughts on the value/no-value or need for a fenced enclosure, as a daily visitor-dog walker to Winslow for over 2 decades, I’ve met and made so many friends there and look forward to my daily visits, and the chance to get outdoors and socialize with fellow dog lovers, friends and neighbors. My dogs love it and so do I. It’s a great spot, and from a personal perspective, it just works as is, and I’d bet the vast majority of visitors to the park would agree.