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.
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.
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!)
Thank you this is a well thought out proposal !
Brian O’Malley… proud owner of Loki
This is reasonable to me. I would like to point out, though, that owners like Andrew and Emme who do not have reliable recall with their dogs could simply buy e-collars and learn how to use them. It’s quite simple. I’ve trained dogs on them in less than an hour.
Brian nails it. Absolutely. 100%. Fully supportable. No brainer. So easy. Just do it.
Thank you Brian for this well thought out cost effective solution.
I wonder if Emme Dorfman is any relation to Kent Dorfman (aka “Flounder” in the classic comedy Animal House (which my SHS buddies Tom Hickey and Todd Shepherd and I watched umpteen million times at the old Fine Arts theatre). Westport truly is a gathering place for talent of all shapes and sizes!!!
100 percent agree!
I use the park daily and have a well trained big dog and a senior little dog and I feel that just fencing off the road would ensure all are safe.
Yes, this sounds like a sensible plan.
Off topic of the safety concerns: The open space they are now considering for the dog port is the area along the post road where dogs are not allowed and in my experience that is one rule that is universally followed by dog owners. Yesterday afternoon I saw a man and his son (presumably) throwing a football in that area and it occurred to me that the text amendment being considered by PnZ would take away the only open space at Winslow where people can go to get away from dogs.
Hey Laurie,
Why would you want to “get away from dogs”? They bring so much joy to everything they touch. Cats I can understand but get away from DOGS? If I were an animal there is absolutely no doubt I would be a dog. Probably a golden retriever. But there’s no way I’d hang out in Winslow Park. I’d go to Saugatuck where all the Italian people know how to appreciate dogs that run free. Scratch on any back door, whimper a little bit and you’ll probably score some leftover chicken Parmesan. And there’s a fire hydrant on every corner which is definitely a good thing, uremically speaking.
Laurie, we did not suggest the area where dogs are not allowed. We pointed it out and said it could not happen.
If you’re looking to go to a park to get away from dogs, there’s 39 other parks in town. Further, Winslow is the designated dog park in town.
The text amendment does not take away open space.
While I don’t take my dogs to Winslow Park, if someone wanted to avoid dogs altogether they could go to any of the parks or athletic fields where dogs are forbidden in town.
We know Brian and Loki (and so does our dog, Bubba) and we appreciate Brian’s support for closing in the remaining openings to North Compo. His suggestions make sense and I believe we will see overwhelming support among the dog owners who frequent Winslow Park for these ideas.
I appreciate that you recognize the safety concerns at Winslow, and I support closing the remaining gaps along Compo Road North. But your proposal and Dogport address different issues.
Dogport is not simply about keeping dogs away from the road. It would provide an optional, fully enclosed area where owners can safely exercise their dogs, separate small and large dogs, and give other park users greater separation from off-leash activity.
options and choices are paramount.
It is also important to clarify that the text amendment does not build a dog park. It simply allows a fenced dog area to be considered. Any actual project would still require further review and public discussion.
Your proposed fencing, gates, signage and enforcement could all improve Winslow. They are not mutually exclusive with Dogport.
If we agree there are safety concerns, we should not eliminate one possible solution before it can even be properly considered.