Editor’s note: following is an opinion submitted by Paul Lebowitz. Mr. Lebowitz is the Chairman of Westport Planning & Zoning Commission.

John Bolton’s recent opinion piece regarding the Planning and Zoning Commission’s amendment to the definition of Special Needs Individuals omits important facts from the public record and mischaracterizes both the process and the Commission’s decision.

First, Mr. Bolton repeatedly suggests that the Commission waited until after his resignation to revisit this issue. The public record demonstrates otherwise. On April 20, 2026, while Mr. Bolton was still serving on the Commission, a majority of the Commission authorized staff to prepare a text amendment concerning the definition of Special Needs Individuals. The application was submitted on April 30 and received on May 4. The matter was therefore already moving through the public process before Mr. Bolton’s departure from the Commission.

While Mr. Bolton is certainly entitled to his opinions, readers should recognize his submission for what it is: an opinion editorial, not a factual account of the proceedings. Unfortunately, Mr. Bolton’s editorial often reads more like a campaign-style position paper than a discussion of the actual amendment before the Commission. The Commission’s responsibility was to evaluate a specific zoning proposal based on the record before it, not to resolve broader national debates over disability policy, federal housing programs, or political ideology.

Second, Mr. Bolton’s editorial would lead readers to believe that we fundamentally disagreed about whether housing opportunities should be expanded for persons with disabilities. We did not.

By his own account, Mr. Bolton was prepared to vote in favor of expanding the definition. Our disagreement was not over whether the definition should be broadened, but whether a mandatory 50% set-aside should be imposed. Reasonable people can disagree on that policy question. What should not be confused is a policy disagreement with a lack of concern for vulnerable residents.

The Commission unanimously concluded that expanding the definition would not eliminate a single housing opportunity for a person with an intellectual disability. Rather, it would allow special-needs housing opportunities to serve a broader population of individuals with disabilities while encouraging the creation of additional housing opportunities overall. The purpose of the amendment was not to reduce opportunities for one group, but to expand opportunities for more people.

The Commission further concluded that a broader definition would make future special-needs housing projects more achievable and encourage additional nonprofit organizations, housing providers, and service agencies to pursue such projects. Conversely, imposing a rigid quota risked discouraging the creation of future special-needs housing opportunities altogether. We believed creating more housing opportunities for more individuals with disabilities was preferable to creating additional barriers that could result in fewer housing opportunities overall.

Third, Mr. Bolton repeatedly claims that the amendment was adopted without expert input, meaningful analysis, or consideration of its impacts. The public record reflects otherwise.

The proposal was reviewed by Town staff, regional planning agencies, and the Human Services Department. The Human Services Director specifically concluded that expanding the definition of Special Needs Individuals would be “a positive step toward expanding inclusive housing opportunities for adults with disabilities.” The proposal was evaluated for consistency with Westport’s Plan of Conservation and Development and Affordable Housing Plan and was referred to numerous agencies and departments for comment.

Mr. Bolton also characterizes this amendment as an improper attempt to revive Text Amendment #864 after its defeat. Once again, the record tells a different story.

The official reasons for denying Text Amendment #864 focused primarily on concerns regarding the off-site affordable housing provisions and their inconsistency with the intent of the Inclusionary Housing Overlay District. Following that denial, the Commission separately considered whether the definition of Special Needs Individuals should be modernized. The amendment ultimately adopted addressed that issue alone.

Nor was this the first time the Commission modified the definition of Special Needs Individuals, having previously amended it in 2022 to address housing needs identified through Homes with Hope’s Project Return program.

Mr. Bolton further alleges that I changed my position because a developer objected to a proposed 50% set-aside. That allegation is false.

After considering the proposal and its practical consequences, I concluded that a rigid quota risked reducing the likelihood that future special-needs housing projects would be proposed or built. Others may disagree with that judgment, but it was my judgment, reached after deliberation and based on what I believed would best serve the Town and the population the regulation was intended to benefit. Suggesting otherwise is unfair to both the process and the individuals who participated in it.

Finally, I was surprised to read many of the concerns expressed in Mr. Bolton’s editorial because they were not raised in the manner described while the matter was before the Commission. The Commission can only deliberate on the record before it. Concerns that are not raised during the hearing process cannot be evaluated, tested, debated, or addressed by the Commission.

Public hearings were held. Deliberations occurred in public. Staff reports were prepared. Public comments were received. Votes were taken in public. The process was transparent, deliberate, and fully consistent with Connecticut law.

Ultimately, the amendment was not adopted by one commissioner, one chairman, one consultant, or one applicant. It was adopted unanimously by the Planning and Zoning Commission after public hearings, staff review, public deliberation, and a recorded vote.

Residents are, of course, free to agree or disagree with the Commission’s decision. That is how local government should work. But the debate should be based on the actual record and the actual amendment before the Commission—not on a narrative that suggests this matter was rushed through after the fact, driven by developers, or somehow abandoned the very people it was intended to help.

Sincerely,

Paul Lebowitz
Chairman
Westport Planning & Zoning Commission