Fairfield TPZ Approves 80-Foot Athletic Field Lights Despite Neighborhood Concerns

FAIRFIELD, CT — The Town Plan and Zoning Commission voted Tuesday to approve a zoning regulation amendment allowing athletic field lighting poles up to 80 feet tall at colleges, universities and schools, despite objections from two commissioners concerned about potential impacts on residential neighborhoods.

The amendment to Section 25.11.7 of the town's zoning regulations was requested by attorney Chris Russo on behalf of Sacred Heart University. It allows the commission to consider lighting poles up to 80 feet through a special exception process, with applications reviewed individually.

Subscribe

Commissioners also rejected a proposed amendment that would have limited the regulation to colleges, universities and affiliated high schools.

The debate centered on whether the new height allowance should extend to public and private schools throughout Fairfield, particularly those surrounded by residential properties.

Commissioner Kathryn Braun opposed including schools in the regulation, arguing that neither the Board of Education nor the Parks and Recreation Department had demonstrated a need for taller lighting poles.

"We should not be permitting use in our regulations without an established need, without doing our own research, without understanding the pros and cons," Braun said.

Braun estimated that the regulation could affect 22 public and private schools, including elementary and middle schools in residential neighborhoods.

Braun proposed removing schools from the amendment while retaining colleges, universities and affiliated high schools, such as Fairfield Prep and Notre Dame Prep. Braun also suggested considering a maximum pole height of 60 feet rather than 80 feet.

Commissioner Veronica Monahan supported the proposed restriction, citing concerns about the potential effects of taller lighting poles on neighboring homes and property values.

Monahan pointed to Sherman School and Osborne Hill Elementary School as examples of locations where 80-foot lighting poles could raise concerns among nearby residents.

"I think it's irresponsible to pass this regulation," Monahan said after the vote, warning that it could negatively affect property values for homeowners living near school athletic fields.

Other commissioners argued that the amendment would provide greater flexibility to evaluate modern athletic lighting systems without requiring applicants to seek zoning variances.

Commissioner Jeff Randolph supported the proposal, saying taller poles can reduce glare and light spillover by directing illumination more precisely toward playing surfaces.

"It's counterintuitive. But these higher poles actually create less light glare," Randolph said.

Randolph, who said he has professional experience with lighting design, noted that the lighting plans presented to the commission included measurements of illumination at property boundaries and specifications intended to reduce light trespass.

Randolph also said the proposal was consistent with the town's Plan of Conservation and Development and could help protect neighboring properties by reducing unwanted illumination.

Commissioner Peter Capozzi emphasized that the amendment does not automatically authorize 80-foot poles at every school or athletic facility. Instead, individual proposals would require special exception approval from the commission.

"This is a case-by-case basis, at the discretion of the Town Plan and Zoning Commission," Capozzi said.

Capozzi described the amendment as a way to accommodate advances in athletic field lighting technology while preserving local oversight.

Town Planning and Zoning Director Emmeline Harrigan also cautioned against relying on the variance process as an alternative, explaining that legal standards for granting variances have become more restrictive.

Harrigan said the 80-foot allowance represents a maximum height rather than a requirement and that schools seeking additional lighting could propose shorter poles based on their particular needs.

Braun remained concerned that the regulation could place an unfair burden on residents who might have to hire lighting experts to challenge future proposals.

Braun also questioned information obtained from town officials after the public hearing had closed, arguing that soliciting new material after the close of testimony raised concerns about fairness and public hearing procedures.

The discussion referenced responses from Parks and Recreation Director Anthony Calabrese and Board of Education facilities personnel concerning athletic field lighting and operating hours. Braun argued that neither department had specifically requested the broader zoning change.

Commissioners also disagreed over whether the presentation provided sufficient technical information about lighting impacts.

Braun called for additional research into lighting standards, including brightness, color temperature, operating hours and protections for surrounding neighborhoods. Braun cited model regulations associated with dark-sky initiatives as a possible resource for future consideration.

Randolph countered that the technical presentation had addressed concerns about glare, light trespass and lighting specifications.

Another commissioner supported the amendment as a way to improve recreational opportunities for students and allow athletic facilities to operate during reasonable hours.

The commission ultimately rejected Braun's proposal to exclude most schools from the regulation.

Commissioners then approved the original amendment, adopting findings outlined in staff comments. Only Braun and Monahan voted against it.