Neighbors urge board to move stadium lights off field adjacent to longtime homes

Several neighbors told the East Hampton Union Free School District board during public comment that including stadium lighting on the existing turf field in the district’s bond proposition would harm families who have lived adjacent to the high school for generations.

Kate Cullum Gibbs (speaker 7), who said her family has lived on the property bordering the high school for five generations and that she has taught in the district for more than 30 years, told the board the family was “gut wrenching” and “heartbroken” to learn lights were proposed on the current turf field. She said an earlier agreement—she did not cite a written agreement in the record—had assured neighbors there would be no lights on that field and asked the board to place lights instead on the centrally located new turf field if lighting is necessary. "If you move forward with this plan, you better believe I'm gonna do the hard thing," she said, adding the family would explore legal options if the district proceeds.

Tom Gibbons (speaker 5), speaking on behalf of his family, described the proposal as life-changing for a household that has owned its property for over 100 years and said bright stadium lights, increased evening events, traffic and noise would immediately reduce property values and quality of life. He urged the board to reconsider siting and to provide more detailed renderings and information about pole heights, lighting footprints and event controls.

Other residents questioned why lighting was treated as a district “need” rather than a “want,” asked whether other fields would be lit, and asked for public renderings that show poles in context with surrounding houses and distances from property lines. One commenter suggested the district could build larger bleachers at the new centrally located field so games and viewing needs would be met without placing lights adjacent to homes.

Board members did not take action on the lighting at the meeting; the comments were recorded as part of the public-comment period for the bond package. The presenters reiterated that renderings and project descriptions are on the district website and invited neighbors to review materials and contact the district with specific questions about design, pole heights and community access plans.

The public record in the meeting contains no written district commitment in the transcript about which specific field would receive lights; neighbors asserted promises were made orally in the past, and they characterized that as not honored. The board did not respond with a specific, binding pledge at the meeting.