Editor’s note: following is an opinion submitted by Westporter John I. Bolton, Esq. Bolton served on the Westport Planning and Zoning Commission from July 2021 to May 2026. He is a solo practitioner in Westport and the Republican candidate for Connecticut Attorney General.

How Westport’s Planning & Zoning Commission sold out the most vulnerable people in our community not long after my seat was empty.

On April 7, 2026, I sat on the Westport Planning and Zoning Commission and voted to defeat Text Amendment #864, a proposal to expand the definition of “Special Needs Individuals” in our zoning regulations and to allow developers to build required affordable housing units off-site—away from their luxury developments. The vote was 4–3. The amendment failed.

Ten weeks later, on June 16, after I had resigned from the Commission to devote my full attention to my campaign for Attorney General, the Commission passed substantially the same thing. Unanimously but with a bare quorum. 

What they did after I stepped down should trouble every resident of Westport who believes that zoning decisions should be made for the right reasons, by people with the courage to defend them in the open.

The Broken Promise

I was ready to vote yes with a compromise proposal.

During the hearings on Text Amendment #864, Chairman Paul Lebowitz proposed a compromise—that at least 50% of any special needs housing approved under the new regulation would be reserved for individuals meeting Connecticut’s statutory definition of intellectual disability under C.G.S. §1-1g. That definition is narrow and specific: an IQ of 69 or below, with concurrent adaptive behavior deficits, originating before age 18. It identifies the most profoundly vulnerable people in our state and town—people who have no voice and cannot advocate for themselves, who cannot navigate housing markets, who depend entirely on public systems for a safe place to live.

I told the Chairman I would support the amendment with that 50% set-aside. It was a reasonable compromise. It would have expanded the definition while protecting the very constituents the definition was originally written to serve.

One week later, Chairman Lebowitz reneged. He rejected his own proposal, arguing that requiring 50% of units to serve Connecticut’s most disabled residents would “discourage developers from building in Westport.”

Read that again. The Chairman of a municipal zoning commission rejected a protection for people with IQs below 70 because it might inconvenience developers. That is not public service. That is capitulation and political cronyism. And for that quote alone, he should be ashamed.

What they did the moment I was gone

After I resigned, the Commission took up a new text amendment—#867—that accomplished what #864 could not. They expanded the special needs definition to incorporate the federal standard. They approved off-site affordable housing for special needs populations. And they did it without the 50% set-aside that was teased to me in April.

The broader definition change passed unanimously again with a bare quorum. Not a single dissenting vote. The off-site affordable housing provision for 785 Post Road East passed 3–1, with only Commissioner Michael Calise voting no.

Westport Journal reported that during the April defeat, “some members said they would support the idea if only special needs units could be created offsite.” That is precisely the compromise I was prepared to accept—with the 50% protection for the most vulnerable in our state and town. Instead, they stripped out the protection and passed it clean.

Why this matters: the people who will pay the price

This is not an academic exercise. Real people will be harmed by what the Commission did.

Connecticut’s Department of Developmental Services reports a residential waitlist of over 900 individuals with intellectual disabilities. These are people with IQs below 70 who cannot live independently. They are waiting—some of them for years—for a safe place to live. Nationally, over 710,000 people with intellectual and developmental disabilities are on Medicaid home and community-based services waiting lists. The supply of specialized housing is catastrophically short.

When you expand the definition of “special needs” from Connecticut’s narrow statutory standard to the far broader federal definition—which encompasses dozens of conditions including depression, anxiety, PTSD, ADHD, and many others—you increase the eligible population by orders of magnitude without adding a single unit of housing.

The economics are predictable and merciless. A developer or property management company operating “special needs” housing under the expanded definition will rationally fill units with higher-functioning, lower-cost-to-serve individuals. A tenant with managed depression costs a fraction of what it takes to serve someone with an IQ of 55 who cannot bathe, dress, cook, or manage medications independently. The developer gets the same zoning concessions and overall benefits — at dramatically lower operating costs.

The result is what social services researchers call “creaming”: the easiest-to-serve individuals get housed while the most vulnerable get pushed to the back of the line. The people Connecticut’s own statutes were written to protect—those with the most significant intellectual disabilities—lose. 

This is not theoretical. It is the documented experience of every state that has tried it. The GAO studied this pattern in federally subsidized housing. Congress had to pass the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 to allow elderly-only housing designations after broader eligibility criteria displaced intended beneficiaries. Multiple states have been forced to create tiered Medicaid waiver systems specifically to prevent higher-functioning populations from consuming resources meant for the most severely disabled. Louisiana had 30,000 people on its IDD waiver waitlist and had to implement emergency triage screening to ensure the most vulnerable weren’t drowned out. 

Is Westport prepared to do the same? 

Does Westport even have the wherewithal and expertise to do the same?

At various times over the last 18 months, this concept was placed on the agenda, withdrawn, placed on the agenda, withdrawn yet again I presented the Commission with all of this evidence and arguments on the record. They voted to expand the definition anyway—without a single safeguard for the population it was originally designed to serve.

A process that should embarrass this commission

The procedural history of this matter should alarm anyone who cares about the integrity of Westport’s land use process.

In early Spring 2025, Text Amendment #864 was initiated by Richard Redniss, a land use consultant who represents multiple developers with projects before the Commission. The amendment was not born out of a comprehensive review of Westport’s housing policy. It was not the product of a study commission, a housing task force, or consultation with disability services professionals. It was designed to allow Redniss’s clients to satisfy their affordable housing obligations without actually building affordable units in their luxury developments.

When #864 was defeated 4–3, the Commission could have respected the result. Instead, it took up the same subject matter under a new number—Text Amendment #867—and passed it after I resigned. Connecticut General Statutes §8-3(e) provides that a commission may refuse to consider any application for a change in the zoning regulations which is submitted within twelve months of the date of the commission’s denial of an application for substantially the same change. The policy behind this statute is obvious: applicants who lose should not get an immediate do-over. The Commission did not merely ignore this policy—it made a mockery of it.

No expert testimony was taken on the implications of changing the special needs definition. No disability services professional specifically addressed in testimony before the Commission about the impact on Connecticut’s IDD population. No analysis was conducted of how the broader federal definition would interact with the existing regulatory framework. 

The entire process was driven by one land use consultant, representing developers, who came back to the table again and again until he got the answer he wanted. Commissioner Valante said it best during the April 2026 hearing, referring to Redniss’s frequent claim that off-site affordable housing was “another tool in the toolbox” for the town: “It’s a tool in their toolbox and we get hit in the head with it.”

Does the commission even have the authority to do this?

There is a serious question whether a municipal planning and zoning commission has the authority under Connecticut’s Home Rule Act to redefine “special needs” for zoning purposes in a manner that departs from the definitions established by the Connecticut General Assembly. The legislature defined intellectual disability in C.G.S. §1-1g with precision and deliberation. That definition reflects a specific legislative judgment about who qualifies and who does not. A seven-member municipal commission—with no medical expertise, no disability services background, and no legislative mandate—substituted the federal definition for the state definition because a land use consultant told them it would be good for developers.

Chairman Lebowitz said “I personally look at this that it makes perfect sense to adopt the federal guidelines rather than be restricted by the state guidelines.” With respect, the Chairman is not the Connecticut General Assembly. The state guidelines exist for a reason. They reflect a considered legislative judgment about who belongs in this profoundly vulnerable category. Overriding them at the municipal level—without expert testimony, without a public policy study, without even an HHS report on the consequences—is not governance. It is improvisation combined with breathtaking hubris.

Follow the money

Strip away the rhetoric about helping special needs individuals and look at what actually happened. A developer wanted to build luxury units at 785 Post Road East and reneged on the initial promise to provide affordable housing on site. After calling out the developer’s consultant for misleading the Commission a year and a half earlier Redniss proposed a text amendment that would let them satisfy their affordable housing obligation by putting units somewhere else—at 3 George Street, managed by Abilis. The Commission said no. Two months later, with a bare quorum entertaining such a critical policy decision, the Commission said yes.

The bottom-line result is unmistakable: every regulatory change adopted that night made life easier for developers and harder for the people the regulations were supposed to protect.

The road to hell

I do not doubt that some members of the Commission believe they acted with good intentions. Abilis is a fine organization. Special needs housing is a genuine and urgent need. 

But the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Good intentions do not excuse passing a regulatory change that was defeated by democratic vote less than two months earlier and with a depleted Commission, no less. Good intentions do not excuse expanding a definition that protects the most vulnerable people in our state without a single safeguard to ensure they are not displaced. Good intentions do not excuse doing the bidding of a developer’s consultant while calling it public service.

I spent five years on the Westport Planning and Zoning Commission. I am proud of the work I did there. I met the Chairman’s illusory 50% set-aside because I believed—and still believe—that you can expand housing opportunities without abandoning the people who need it most. The Chairman agreed with me, then changed his mind when the developer objected. That tells you everything you need to know about whose interests drove this decision.

To the residents of Westport: your Planning and Zoning Commission expanded the definition of “special needs” to make it easier for developers to avoid building affordable housing in their projects. They did it without expert testimony, without safeguards for Connecticut’s most disabled residents, and with a depleted panel. That is not beneficence. That is opportunism.

I said on the record in April: “All of this is just beyond disappointing. I just can’t believe this because I was really ready to sit down and vote yes for this. I really was.” I meant it then. I mean it now. I was ready to find common ground. They chose to find an empty chair instead.

John I. Bolton, Esq.