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.
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.
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.