Latest News
Auto Repair
Blinds
Building/Remodeling
Floor Refinishing
Insulation
Landscaping
Landscaping
Lightning Rods
Moving
Overhead Doors
Though they weren’t legally required to do so, representatives from Charlotte Hungerford Hospital came to the Winchester Board of Selectmen’s meeting Monday night to discuss the latest developments in their quest to either upgrade the current Winsted Health Center or build a new facility — the latter of which has been on the front burner for several months.
The meeting came after the Board of Selectmen wrote a letter to hospital officials in August declaring that selectmen want the health center to stay where it is, but the board didn’t offer the most convincing arguments Monday night.
Many people in Winsted share an affinity for the Winsted Health Center, which was built more than a century ago and has seen its share of controversy in recent years. The stately old structure is a local landmark and a recognized point of service for many area residents who simply do not want to see the health center leave.
But through the building’s years, as the business of Litchfield County Hospital and Winsted Memorial Hospital faded, Winsted saw the number of visits decline. Medical services moved out, and the center went bankrupt amid increasing health-care costs. A community group, the Winsted Health Center Foundation, took over, to restructure and reopen the facility as the Winsted Health Center.
These days, the foundation’s primary reason for keeping emergency services at the Winsted Health Center seems to be the group’s desire for control. Since the Winsted Health Center opened, the organization has maintained offices at the center, with a paid executive director, and has been the landlord, managing the rental of space to other health-care organizations. Ostensibly a community organization, the foundation has received criticism for operating in the shadows, invoking the rights of a private organization when shutting the press out of meetings.
During a recent meeting, the foundation formally asked officials from Charlotte Hungerford Hospital to wait on a plan to move emergency services to a proposed new building in Barkhamsted, just past the Winsted line. The foundation has offered to work on an alternate plan to keep emergency services at the Winsted Health Center complex, but specifics of that plan have not been announced.
The lack of information is not surprising. With little oversight, the foundation has failed to make significant strides in terms of filling empty space in the old hospital or increasing hours of operation. Those arguing for the move say the building’s age makes needed repairs cost-prohibitive, while the foundation has shown little interest in making creative investments or developing a marketing plan.
On Monday night, selectmen told CharlotteHungerford representatives that they want the health center to stay where it is because of its importance to the local tax base — something no business is required to consider when choosing a location. More important is the center’s proximity to the downtown area and the Winsted Area Ambulance Association’s headquarters on Main Street.
Still, hospital representatives have agreed to give the foundation time to come up with an alternative plan, which would keep the Winsted Health Center intact. It will be a pleasant surprise to see that plan come to fruition.
Officials said they expect to make a decision by the spring of 2011 — or within the next six months — on which way to go. Don’t be surprised if things get ugly between now and then.
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.