LAKEVILLE — Noise pollution continues to be a crux of the public hearing to expand the Wake Robin Inn. On Aug. 26, the fifth hearing session of the month and second-to-last in the statutorily defined window, the question arose: is any additional sound permissible at all?
Bennett Brooks, founding sound engineer of Brooks Acoustics Corporation and an expert hired by Wells Hill Road residents William and Angela Cruger in opposition to the project, said no: “I think all the experts agree that the project will be audible and that’s the criterion.”
Attorney Josh Mackey, who has represented the applicant Aradev LLC since its first appearance before the Planning and Zoning Commission last fall, countered Brooks: “The idea that nuisance within the regulations means anything that is audible to neighbors is simply ludicrous.”
He referenced air conditioning units, dogs barking and children playing as inevitable sounds in a residential neighborhood. Herb Singleton, a sound engineer with Cross-Spectrum Acoustics and the Commission’s third-party expert reviewer, agreed with Mackey, explaining that defining nuisance as any sound emission that can be heard by neighbors “gets dangerous very, very quickly” due to those complicating factors. He suggested that nuisance “implies a level of annoyance based on audibility,” rather than audibility itself.
It was the third hearing in a row in which sound took center stage in the discussion, with the focal point being what constitutes “nuisance,” as it appears in the town’s zoning regulation 803.2 for special permit approval: “The use shall not create a nuisance to neighboring properties, whether by noise, air, or water pollution; offensive odors, dust, smoke, vibrations, lighting, or other effects.”
A sound study commissioned by Aradev for its application and Singleton’s third-party review both stated that the noise produced by the redeveloped hotel would be below a nuisance level at the property boundaries. At the Aug. 12 hearing, though, neighbors countered that any additional noise intrusion onto their own properties would be against the regulations, as they are intended to “protect abutters and neighbors” from intrusion beyond what they are used to, as Bill Cruger put it. Brooks argued in his Aug. 26 testimony that “in terms of size and scope, this project is almost identical to the former application,” which Aradev withdrew in December due to a likely denial.
Brooks was one of three experts brought into the Zoom room on Tuesday evening to provide testimony against the proposed hotel development. The Crugers, who were intervenors in the 2024 round of hearings for the first iteration of the Inn redevelopment proposal, decided not to formally intervene again during this cycle. Instead, P&Z Chair Michael Klemens stated that the Commission decided to allow the Crugers’ experts to “engage in a dialogue” during the process, but without formal party status in the proceedings.
The other two presenters, wetland scientist George Logan of Rema Ecological Services and Brian Miller of Miller Planning Group, echoed Brooks in their testimonies that Aradev’s current application has not satisfactorily reduced the scale and intensity of the first proposal. Representatives of Aradev have continued to argue that the current plan, which reduces the total occupancy from 158 to 130 and downscales its build footprint, among other alterations, adequately address scale and intensity concerns raised by the Commission and the public.
Of Tuesday’s three-hour meeting, only 20 minutes were left for public comment, leading to a much-abbreviated session for residential input. Klemens announced that the next hearing session, scheduled for Thursday, Sept. 4, at 6:30 p.m., will prioritize the public’s chance to speak.
Thursday is the last scheduled date for the public hearing, which state law deems must close on Sept. 9.
State Sen. Stephen Harding
NEW MILFORD — State Sen. and Minority Leader Stephen Harding announced Jan. 20 the launch of his re-election campaign for the state’s 30th Senate District.
Harding was first elected to the State Senate in November 2022. He previously served in the House beginning in 2015. He is an attorney from New Milford.
In his campaign announcement, he said, “There is still important work to do to make Connecticut more affordable, government more accountable, and create economic opportunity. I’m running for reelection to continue standing up for our communities, listening to residents, and delivering real results.”
As of late January, no publicly listed challenger has filed to run against him.
The 30th District includes Bethlehem, Brookfield, Cornwall, Falls Village, Goshen, Kent, Litchfield, Morris, New Fairfield, New Milford, North Canaan, Salisbury, Sharon, Sherman, Warren, Washington, Winchester and part of Torrington.
MILLERTON — James (Jimmy) Cookingham, 51, a lifelong local resident, passed away on Jan. 19, 2026.
James was born on April 17, 1972 in Sharon, the son of Robert Cookingham and the late Joanne Cookingham.
He attended Webutuck Central School.
Jimmy was an avid farmer since a very young age at Daisey Hill and eventually had joint ownership of Daisey Hill Farm in Millerton with his wife Jessica.
He took great pride in growing pumpkins and sweet corn.
He was very outdoorsy and besides farming, loved to ride four wheelers, fish, and deer hunt. He also loved to make a roaring bonfire.
He was a farmer, friend, husband, father, son and brother. He will be missed by many.
He is survived by his father, Robert Cookingham, wife Jessica (Ball) Cookingham, daughters, Hailey Cookingham-Loiodice (Matt), Taylor Ellis-Tanner (Jimmy) and sister Brenda Valyou, as well as many cousins, nieces and nephews.
He is predeceased by his mother, Joanne (Palmer) Cookingham.
His daughter, Hailey, will always keep his legacy alive by their father-daughter antics, such as their handshake, nicknames and making “quacking noises” at each other.
Services/Memorials will be held at a later date.
The Kenny Funeral Home has care of arrangements.
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.