The Westport Planning and Zoning Commission expressed concerns that it hasn’t discussed an overall vision for the update to the Town Plan of Conservation and Development and discussed formatting issues during a discussion on the first draft of the plan.
The commission held its first discussion on the draft, which has yet to be released to the public, during its meeting Monday night. Glenn Chalder, Planimetrics principal who is working on the plan with the commission, said he was seeking feedback from the commission.
“It’s a lump of clay right now and it needs to take shape,” he said.
The commission expressed concerns about formatting and linking the new plan to the 1997 Town Plan of Conservation and Development.
“The draft lacks an overall structure,” said Ron Corwin, commission co-chairman. “I want to know what the big picture is and then where we go from there.”
The 1997 draft had a good structure, he said, where goals were listed followed by policy and recommendations.
David Press, a commission member, said he feels like the commission is “chasing a train.”
“We never went though the plan and said what we want,” he said. “We can’t get too far without that coming out of the commission.”
Eleanor Lowenstein, commission co-chairwoman, said the philosophy she sees in the draft plan is to grow Westport much bigger, and she is not sure that is what the commission wants.
“There is the presumption of a lot of growth here,” she said.
Corwin said the commission needs to discuss how big it wants the town to be in 10 years because it would drive the other things in the plan.
Chalder said the focus of the size should be on the number of housing units and not the number of people because the family dynamic is always changing.
He said the the last two plans in 1987 and 1997 were essentially continuation of previous plans because things had worked well for the town.
“I realize some things work out well and those should be continued, but there are issues because the town has changed,” he said. “An example is the housing stock.”
The new plan should show where there is a departure from the 1997 plan, he said.
“Change is not bad,” he said. “It means new opportunity.”
Once this draft becomes available, as well a subsequent versions, it is imperative that interested residents weigh in on this process.
It worries me to read some of the comments above, but glad they are airing them and on top of it. This is our town plan not the consultant’s.
There have been 4 town meetings. It was clear in those meetings what the residents were interested in. Character of the Town, Open Space and Protection of the Environment were front and center. That’s the philosophy that needs to be the basis.
I question the concept of “change is not bad…it means opportunity.” Opportunity for who? Change is inevitable, but controlling it is what the residents wanted.
6 RTM members have requested from the P&Z and the consultant a “Net Change List.” We are looking for what currently is being omitted from the 1997 town plan and what is being added. This will more easily tell us what changes are occurring.
Matthew Mandell
RTM D1
Yes, preserving our small town character including the single family residential nature of our neighborhoods are among the major goals cited at the public plenary meetings. This would logically imply keeping the population at approximately the same level it is now.
The question about change is a good one: What changes, and proposed by whom, would we be looking at? The needs and interests of the people who live in this town should always be the primary focus. This is only logical, since it is they who have the greatest stake in the outcome, they who have the greatest investment both materially and emotionally, and they more than anyone else who will bear the sweet or bitter fruits of any change.