Find out what's happening in Fairfieldwith free, real-time updates from Patch.

1) To give the police department more tools to use to assist in enforcement and to simplify standards applied
2) To broaden protections to include daytime hours
3) To be responsive to multiple constituent complaints and concerns regarding unregulated noise at town-leased/rented properties, disruptive yard maintenance noise, vehicular engine revving, loud mufflers, and fireworks

The current ordinance does not address daytime noise complaints, but adding set times for when residents can generate certain sound levels is an area that got significant pushback from Republicans on the RTM.

Member Karen McCormack and others took issue with a proposed 6 p.m. cutoff for landscaping on weekends. She said that some residents might work on Saturdays and not be able to cut their lawn until 6:30 p.m., at which time it is still light out.

“Why should someone be restricted in the use of their property?” McCormack asked. “All the stakeholders who will be infringed upon need to be heard on this proposal.”

Additionally, the current ordinance relies on the use of a sound meter and decibel readings to determine noise levels, but Vergara said the police department only has one such device and does not use it.

No members of the police department were present Monday night to discuss how officers currently enforce noise complaints, and what the department thought of the proposed changes.

Residents from around Fairfield, but primarily the beach area, have complained about situations of excessive noise for years, which led Vergara and others to research and propose changes. Several other Connecticut communities have strong noise ordinances, such as Norwalk and Hartford.

Click Here: Manchester United soccer tracksuit

“There are a lot of impacts of this,” said member Jeff Steele. “I’d like to hear from the police department on the proposed changes.”

To read the proposed changes, click here and scroll down to page 246 in the RTM packet of backup material.

“Heard a lot around town that this is the ‘no fun ordinance,'” said member Pam Iacono, who suggested the proposals be withdrawn for the time being to allow it to get bipartisan support.

The RTM’s Legislation & Administration Committee will take a crack at the proposal in the near future.

Following the RTM meeting, First Selectwoman Brenda Kupchick said that she was glad to hear that the proponents of the changes were willing to bring it back to the L&A committee for further discussion.

“I am concerned this noise ordinance has not been publicly disseminated in any meaningful way by the proponents of this legislation,” Kupchick told Patch in a statement. “This appears to have a far-reaching impact on our community, and some negative — perhaps unintended — consequences for the Town, businesses, residents and law enforcement.

“I served on the RTM from 1999 to 2003, and all ordinance committees were established with members from both parties by the moderator. The RTM worked on the first blight ordinance at that time and spent nearly a year discussing all aspects of the ordinance in public ordinance committee meetings with input from the public, building, zoning, and health departments, before putting a fully vetted ordinance up for consideration for a vote. Details really matter when writing legislation.

“I call on the RTM to take the time to do their due diligence before bringing this or any ordinance up for a vote. I would also hope the moderator would work to ensure all ordinance committees have membership from both sides of the aisle.

“I encourage residents to pay attention to what is being proposed and to weigh in with the RTM.”

Get more local news delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for free Patch newsletters and alerts.