Latest News
Auto Repair
Blinds
Building/Remodeling
Floor Refinishing
Insulation
Landscaping
Landscaping
Lightning Rods
Moving
Overhead Doors
SHARON — The town’s Economic Development Study Group held a meeting for business owners on Thursday, May 27, at Town Hall to discuss strategies and whether or not a chamber of commerce for the town should be formed.
The meeting was led by committee Chairman Lynn Humeston, who presented a report to the town last September that essentially said the town is not business friendly.
“We have seen some improvement since the report was issued,� Humeston said before the meeting. “The committee is hoping that, with business owners working together, it would help the town on a number of levels.
“Our non-profits in town are well utilized when their organizations have an event. If we had a chamber of commerce, we would be able to promote events together.�
She stressed that the goal of the group is not necessarily to create many new businesses but to support the ones that exist.
Along with the 45 business owners and community members, First Selectman Bob Loucks and Selectman Meg Szalewicz also attended the meeting.
During his election campaign in September 2009, Loucks told an audience at a meet and greet that Sharon Hospital CEO Charlie Therrien said Sharon is a dying town.
“I think it was a good statement because it brought us all to life,� Loucks said before the meeting. “No one likes to be told that.�
At the meeting, Humeston went over the results from the study report with the audience and gave some blunt assessments.
“One successful longtime business owner in town said to me that if they were starting a business today they would not choose Sharon,� Humeston said. “I found that just a little bit scary.�
As the meeting went on, the audience broke into two different focus groups to discuss the issues facing the town’s businesses and how to deal with them.
The groups were led by Study Group member Lea Davies and Selectman Szalewicz.
After the groups met, Davies and Szalewicz presented summaries.
Davies said the first thing his group suggested is that the town’s zoning and historic district be more friendly to businesses.
“For example, if you have a retail space, and if you change that space to office space, you lose the ability to ever go back to retail,� Davies said. “So there is not a lot of flexibility in how we use our buildings for retail and commercial. It seems like the town wants to move all of the buildings to residential use.�
Davies said the majority of his group told him that there was no cohesiveness among businesses in town, a situation that might be alleviated by forming a chamber of commerce.
“We have a hospital and Tri-Arts. We need to leverage that to make people think of Sharon as a destination,� Davies said.
His group also suggested the town create a business center downtown; find solutions for making transportation easier; and find a hardware store willing to open here.
Szalewicz said her group suggested many of the same ideas, including forming a chamber of commerce.
“The first thing our group discovered was that many of the business owners didn’t even know each other,� Szalewicz said. “They felt there needs to be some sort of business group so they can support one another. They do support each other by word of mouth, but it’s not happening the way that it should.�
Szalewicz said her group suggested creating a map of town businesses and said the town government should be more business friendly.
“Signs were also a major concern to the group,� she said. “We talked about how difficult it is for businesses to put signs up. The group felt that signs would make a big difference to businesses here.�
Before the meeting ended, Humeston asked the audience if there was any interest in forming a chamber of commerce. A majority of the audience raised their hands.
Lynn Mohlenhoff, Lee Kennedy, Helen Killmer, Darren Winston, Jenny Hansell and Amy Schuchat all volunteered to form a study committee to research the forming of a chamber.
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.