Latest News
Auto Repair
Blinds
Building/Remodeling
Floor Refinishing
Insulation
Landscaping
Landscaping
Lightning Rods
Moving
Overhead Doors
The garden in the mind of photographer and artist Anastasia Traina is alive with curious characters — fairy folk congregate with beetle and butterfly in a secret world of what Shakespeare might have called "the merry wanderers of the night." Based in Chatham, N.Y., with her husband, actor Scott Cohen, known for his roles on "Gilmore Girls," and, fittingly, the fairytale cult-classic miniseries "The 10th Kingdom," Traina spoke with me ahead of her solo art exhibit, "Alchemy and Innocent," which will open at The Berkshire Botanical Gardens in Stockbridge, Mass., on Friday, May 5.
Alexander Wilburn: Previously you were living in New York City, has living upstate had an effect on your art?
Anastasia Traina: It’s here that I discovered a new language to tell my stories. Previously I was a playwright and a screenwriter, but I found myself at a crossroads. I wanted to tell stories in a different way. I found myself at Berkshire Botanical Garden one day and found out they had classes for botanical art. I slowly became enchanted with visual storytelling, and I ventured down to the New York Botanical Garden’s program for art and illustration. From there I developed the technical ability to tell my stories about the natural world.
AW: I didn’t know the Botanical Gardens in New York had an art program.
AT: It’s actually a very prestigious program and it really is like going to art school, you learn from the very best. They take you through every single medium, watercolor, colored pencil, silverpoint…it’s a very classical education.
AW: We see a lot of floral paintings here in the country, but yours are decidedly different. How would you describe your approach?
AT: I find a floral specimen that I love, in the forest or in a garden — recently I ventured to Emily Dickinson’s garden. The house was closed and in the garden, which was being very well taken care of, was a tulip that was half alive, but it was so vibrant still, and it had this little dozing bumble bee on it. I thought this is where Emily got her inspiration. The garden was so small, and her literary world is so huge in its depth. I sat there and sketched the tulip and the bumble bee, and later at home started researching Emily’s poems on tulips and what the colors of different tulips mean. I feel like a flower’s life reflects ours in a way. They’re beautiful living creatures, their lives are so brief, but they’re so full of lessons and poetry.
AW: When I was looking at your work I was thinking about the Victorian illustrator Richard Dadd who was known for his supernatural illustrations of fairies.
AT: I love him, his paintings are so beautiful and intense, and so intricate in their details.
AW: The similarities I see are that your fairies and little creatures are so well blended into nature, you have to take a second or third look to find all the little details in your work.
AT: A lot of the time in my work I’m inspired not just by the single flower but by all the dirt and little microbes and fungi around it. You can find so many things that are alive in a handful of terra. It’s magical to see what’s alive in the soil. Everything is so interconnected. In my art, I take a little patch of soil with mushrooms and little creatures on it, and it’s my way of making it important and saying you should take care of the Earth.
Onna-Bug-eisha and Her Leaf Cutting Factory by Anastasia Traina Photo courtesy the artist
Wait For Me Photo courtesy the artist
Onna-Bug-eisha and Her Leaf Cutting Factory by Anastasia Traina Photo courtesy the artist
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.