[OPINION] Simple, Less Costly Alternative Could Address Winslow Dog Safety Concerns

Brian O’Malley grew up in Weston. A retired marketing executive with Hewlett Packard, IBM and others, he has now lived in Westport for over 40 years.  

He has owned many huskies, all of whom loved Winslow Park. Brian writes:   

There’s a simpler, less costly way to address the safety concerns behind the Winslow Park “Dogport” proposal (the text amendment now before the Planning & Zoning Commission that would allow a fenced dog enclosure in a park that already separates leashed and unleashed areas).

The amendment would change Winslow’s classification, meant to keep town-owned open space unencumbered by structures and reserved for passive recreation. Without P&Z approval, the enclosure cannot be built.

This has become another contentious issue within the Westport community, with more than 60 residents staying for nearly 5 hours at a recent P&Z hearing to voice their views.

Proponents Andrew Colabella and Emme Dorfman argue the enclosure would make the park safer for dogs and owners alike. Andrew points to dogs escaping onto Compo Road North — including a fatal incident — and argues a fenced area would let passive park users avoid off-leash dogs entirely, while letting owners separate small dogs from large ones.

Gaps remain in the stone wall separating Winslow Park from Compo Road North. 

Emme, who developed the idea for a school project, worries her own dogs could get loose at Winslow, adding that no one would be required to use the fenced-in area.

As a near-daily Winslow visitor for over 20 years who has attended every public meeting on this issue, I agree the park has real safety problems. But I don’t agree that a fenced enclosure — and the contentious zoning fight it requires — is the only, or the best, way to solve them.

Responsible ownership and accountability don’t require a fence to exist; they require rules that are enforced, which the town can establish today.

I’m proposing a targeted, lower-cost alternative that needs no zoning change and has already been partially built. After the 2022 fatality on Compo Road North, I worked with the affected family. Twice that summer, I presented a detailed fencing plan to Parks & Recreation.

Fellow dog owners and I began a GoFundMe campaign to cover the cost. Riverside Fence — a contractor with municipal projects from Greenwich to Westport — provided a full quote on May 12, 2022.

The town ultimately did the work itself, but completed only a partial fix, closing wall gaps along a limited stretch near the road rather than the full boundary that was proposed. The town already has a workable, non-zoning solution in hand — it simply hasn’t been finished.

Winslow Park

Three modest steps would complete it, none requiring a zoning change: Finish the remaining 30–40 feet of post-and-rail fencing that separates the leashed and unleashed areas, and add matching mesh; close the remaining stone wall gaps along the east and south meadow on-leash areas near Compo Road North; and install a gated entry at the Playhouse parking lot, the park’s main access point.

Completing this work would fully separate leashed and unleashed areas, resolving the “conflict” and “predictability” concerns proponents raise — concerns that stem largely from how easily dogs move between zones today.  It would also remove conflict risk between families and off-leash dogs in shared spaces like the east meadow sledding hill, and add additional protection for on-leash visitors in the rare event a dog escapes despite a responsible owner’s best efforts.

Brian O’Malley’s proposal would close the gaps along Winslow Park’s border with Compo Road North (right side of map).

Pairing this with clear signage — rules posted at every entrance; visible markers at zone boundaries, and a short-term, time-limited increase in enforcement during construction — would round it into a complete safety package.

It comes at a fraction of the cost, maintenance burden, and liability exposure of a permanent enclosure, while preserving the park’s open, unencumbered character for every visitor — not just dog owners.

A documented, funded safety response also carries less liability exposure for the town than an unaddressed, known hazard, and avoids the added upkeep — gate hardware, drainage, worn ground cover — that comes with a permanent enclosure at scale.

Example of transparent mesh fencing that could be used at Winslow Park.

Connecticut’s §8-2 “reasonably related” standard asks whether a zoning change is the least restrictive means necessary to meet a legitimate public need. When a more direct, non-zoning remedy is already funded, documented, and on the table, the Commission should weigh that carefully before amending the town’s zoning code over the objections of so many residents.

If you agree, I encourage you to share your views with the Parks & Recreation Department and the Planning & Zoning Commission before the September 14 vote.

(“06880” Opinion pages are open to all readers. Email submissions to 06880blog@gmail.com. To support this hyper-local blog, please click here. Thank you!)