Latest News
Auto Repair
Blinds
Building/Remodeling
Floor Refinishing
Insulation
Landscaping
Landscaping
Lightning Rods
Moving
Overhead Doors
SALISBURY — The Board of Selectmen approved a bidding process for buyers interested in buying the old firehouse on Route 41 (Sharon Road) at a special meeting Monday, May 23.Selectman Bob Riva did not attend the special meeting. First Selectman Curtis Rand said that Riva, a Realtor, decided to recuse himself from the entire process.The sole item on the agenda was a document with two sections: “Guidelines for Bids” and “Auction Procedures.” The document was created by the town attorney.The town will consider “qualified bids” with a submission deadline of Monday, June 13.A qualified bid will specify the purchase price; provide a 10 percent deposit of the purchase price; specify any conditions the bidder wants to put on the bid; state that the deposit will be forfeited if the bidder “fails or refuses to purchase” the property; discloses the identity of the bidder; indicates the proposed use; and indicates whether a bidder is willing to leave an offer open if the town initially selects a different offer.The document assumes a closing date of no later than Aug. 12.The town will hold an auction Thursday, June 16, at 2 p.m. at Town Hall, among the qualified bidders, who will have a chance to decide if they want to increase or modify their offers.A bid, once deemed to be qualified, is subject to approval by taxpayers at a town meeting. Voters will be able to consider more than one offer; and the selectmen might or might not recommend a particular bid to the town meeting for consideration.Rand said there have been enough expressions of interest in the former firehouse to get the process started. The property has been on the market for several months.“This seemed like the cleanest way to proceed,” Rand said.Salisbury resident Peter Oliver disagreed. “This is a relatively convoluted way to run an auction,” he said, and pointed to an apparent contradiction in the language about qualified bids.Oliver also advised making the deposit amount a standard fee rather than a percentage.Salisbury resident Mike Flint recommended that the use of the word “town” be clarified. (“The Town” recurs in sentences such as “the Town shall have the right, in its sole and absolute discretion, to determine whether any bid is higher or better than any other bid.”)Flint also said he believed state statutes require a public hearing, and asked who in fact is the deed holder on the property.Rand was unsure on the former, and on the deed said the firehouse is the property of the now-dissolved fire district and the town’s attorneys are working on getting the matter straightened out now.So the board, consisting of Rand and Selectman Jim Dresser, voted to adopt the guidelines and auction procedures with changes to the language about qualified bidders and a clarification of to whom the phrase “the Town” refers (the selectmen, for example, or the the town attorney, or the voters at a town meeting).On Tuesday, Rand said the process of changing the language for clarity on the points raised at the meeting was in progress. He said the phrase “the Town” applies to the Board of Selectmen, except when it refers to the town meeting that must approve any sale.He also said the deed situation would be in hand by the time a sale is pending.“The purpose is for us to make a decision on if the offers are legitimate,” he said, adding that there have been several expressions of interest, some from local people and some from out of town, and he hopes there will be competing offers for voters at the town meeting to consider.The guidelines will be emailed to real estate agents and posted on the town’s website as soon as those changes are made.
Related Stories
Get Local News Delivered To Your Inbox
Subscribe to receive stories reported for, by, and about our neighbors, on the issues affecting you.
By signing up you agree to our
privacy policy
.
Telecom Reg’s Best Kept On the Books
When Connecticut land-use commissions update their regulations, it seems like a no-brainer to jettison old telecommunications regulations adopted decades ago during a short-lived period when municipalities had authority to regulate second generation (2G) transmissions prior to the Connecticut Siting Council (CSC) being ordered by a state court in 2000 to regulate all cell tower infrastructure as “functionally equivalent” services.
It is far better to update those regs instead, especially for macro-towers given new technologies like small cells. Even though only ‘advisory’ to the CSC, the preferences of towns by law must be taken into consideration in CSC decision making. Detailed telecom regs – not just a general wish list -- are evidence that a town has put considerable thought into where they prefer such infrastructure be sited without prohibiting service that many – though not all – citizens want and that first responders rely on for public safety.
Such regs come in handy when egregious tower sites are proposed in sensitive areas, typically on private land. The regs are a town’s first line of defense, especially when cross referenced to plans of conservation and development, P&Z regulations, and wetlands setbacks. They identify how/where the town plans to intersect with the CSC process. They are also a roadmap for service providers regarding preferred sites and sometimes less neighborhood contention. In fact, to have no telecom regs can weaken a town’s rights to protect environmental, scenic, and historic assets, and serve up whole neighborhoods to unnecessary overlapping coverage and corporate overreach. Such regs are unique to every town and should not follow anyone else’s boiler plate, especially industry’s.
Connecticut is the only state that has a centralized siting entity for cell towers. The good news is that applicants must prove need for new tower sites in an evidentiary proceeding and any decisions have the weight of the state behind them. The bad news is that the CSC used to be far less industry-friendly and rote in their reviews, which now resemble a check list. There is an operative assumption at CSC that if an applicant wants a tower, they must need it, otherwise why spend significant money to run the approval gauntlet? This reflects a subtle shift over the years at CSC from sincere willingness to protect the environment toward minimal tweaking of bad applications with minor changes. The bottom line is that towns really cannot rely on the CSC to do all the work for them.
What CSC issues telecom providers is a “certificate of environmental compatibility” after an evidentiary proceeding (not unlike a court case) with intervenors, parties, expert witnesses, and the service provider’s technical pro’s sworn in and subject to cross examination. Service providers get to do the same with any opposition from intervenor/party participants – like towns and citizens -- and their experts. It’s an impressive process whose ultimate goal is the fine balancing between allowing adequate/reliable public services and protecting state ecology with minimal damage to scenic, historic, and recreational values. They unfortunately often fall short of their mandate – like approving cell towers with diesel generators over town aquifers -- evidenced by CSC only rejecting about five cell towers in the past 15-20 years.
The CSC was founded in 1972 and clarified its mission in the 1980’s to prevent the state from being carved up willy-nilly by gas pipelines, high tension corridors, and broadcast towers. With the sudden proliferation of cell towers beginning in late 1990’s, it became the most sued agency in Connecticut by both an arrogant upstart industry if applications were denied and by towns/citizens when bad sites were forced on them. CSC gradually formed a defensive posture that drives their decisions toward industry with deeper pockets and attorneys on retainer.
For citizens, nothing can wreck one’s day like the CSC. It behooves towns to protect what little toolkit they have, and understand the legal parameters of the CSC’s playing field. The CSC is not a “normal” government agency where municipal/citizen redress is based on logic and local support. Their process is largely immune to everything but specific kinds of evidence – like town regs with setbacks/fall zones, radio frequency transmission signal strengths, sensitive areas identified, and detailed wildlife inventory, among others.
There is a current cell tower fight involving two intervening towns -- Washington and Warren; both with good cell tower regs – over a tower site within 1200’ of a Montessori School, near Steep Rock’s nature preserves with comprehensive geology/wildlife databases that include endangered, threatened and special concern flora and fauna, on established federal/state migratory bird flyways, within throwing distance to a historic site capable of being listed on the Underground Railroad, and with an access road on a blind curve entering a state highway that will permanently damage wetlands, vernal pools, and core forests. There are well credentialed environmental experts, including Dr. Michael Klemens, former chair of Salisbury’s P&Z, as well as the former director of migratory bird management at the US Fish and Wildlife Service, and an RF engineer testifying to alternative approaches, plus three attorneys representing intervenors. It is the most professional challenge I have seen at CSC since Falls Village successfully mounted one that protected Robbins Swamps several years ago.
The hearing is ongoing, with uncertain results. To see what it takes today to stop an inappropriate tower siting, see Docket #543 under “Pending Matters” at https://portal.ct.gov/csc before removing local cell tower regs – the lowest hanging fruit that any town can possess in case it’s needed.
B, Blake Levitt is the Communications Director at The Berkshire-Litchfield Environmental Council. She writes about how technology affects biology.