Thousands Sign Fairfield Petition Against Beach Parking Bills

FAIRFIELD, CT — A petition started by a Fairfield resident has received more than 3,000 signatures in opposition to a pair of state bills that would make municipal beaches cheaper and more accessible for out-of-towners, but that some say could place a financial burden on beach communities.

Municipalities that receive certain road grants would not under Bill 5254 be allowed to restrict parking access near a public beach or recreational area, nor would they be able to charge different parking fees for residents vs. non-residents.

A hearing on the bill took place Monday before the Transportation Committee. Fairfield officials have been vocal in their opposition.

“As a leader of a coastal town, I think it’s important that each town is able to maintain their own shoreline and I think it’s completely reasonable to charge a higher rate for out-of-town residents to use the beach, because it does cost our town money to maintain it,” First Selectwoman Brenda Kupchick said in an interview with Patch.

Brian Farnen, a former state representative who is running to take back his old seat in Fairfield-based District 132, started the petition, which argues that beach maintenance costs fall on local taxpayers, and visitors should pay their fair share. Farnen, who sits on the board of the Fairfield Beach Residents Association, was also concerned about the bill’s potential to affect traffic in the town’s beach neighborhoods.

“I think it’s going to cause a lot more potential congestion and pedestrian safety issues,” he said. “At the end of the day, it’s a neighborhood of families, with little kids on bikes.”

If the bill were to become law, Fairfield could lose up to $1.2 million annually, according to Director of Parks and Recreation Anthony Calabrese.

“The current wording of the bill is confusing and not clear to the layperson,” he said in a letter to the committee. “However, it is clear the intent is to remove any restrictions to access public facilities.”

Season beach stickers — $25 for residents, $250 for non-residents — bring in about $925,000 per year for the town. Daily parking fees — $40 on weekdays and $50 during weekends and holidays — yield $275,000 annually.

“This would create a shortfall in revenue in the current budgets for all municipalities that are effected,” Calabrese said in the letter, in which he referred to the potential approval of the bill as “devastating.”

While committee Co-Chair Roland Lemar, D-96, acknowledged there should and likely would be modifications to the bill, such as allowing some degree of differential rate structure, he also noted much the state has limited access to the shoreline.

“Towns will use their beaches to engage in exclusionary acts,” he said, adding Fairfield's beaches have received tens of millions of dollars in recent years for nearby road repairs, shoreline stabilization and more. “There needs to be a reasonable fee attached that is accessible to all.”

Bill 5254 has the support of the ACLU and NAACP, according to Lemar.

Another relevant piece of legislation called Bill 5361 will be heard Monday by the Planning and Development Committee. Based on a proposal from the state Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, it would prevent towns from closing beaches to non-residents unless residents are prohibited from entry as well. It would also require non-resident parking or entrance fees to be no more than 50 percent higher than resident fees.

“I think that there are concerns about just literally access in terms of affordability,” said Co-Chair Cristin McCarthy Vahey, D-133, who represents part of Fairfield. “It has been and likely will remain an ongoing conversation.”