Latest News
Auto Repair
Blinds
Building/Remodeling
Floor Refinishing
Insulation
Landscaping
Landscaping
Lightning Rods
Moving
Overhead Doors
WINSTED — Gilbert’s girls and boys soccer squads hosted Wolcott Tech in their last two games — and posted shut-outs in both showings. The gentleman Jackets faced the Wildcats on Friday, Oct. 30, where a penalty kick early in the first half gave them the edge in a fiery and even-matched effort at home. The lady Jackets claimed a lopsided 6-0 Senior Night victory on Monday, Nov. 2.
Boys
The Gilbert boys kept Wolcott Tech frustrated out of the gate with clean, aggressive play. The Wildcats responded with a number of good chances that were halted by sophomore Yellowjacket goalkeeper Dan Williams.
Williams’ field sense is remarkable, and his on-field leadership keeps the Gilbert defense organized and alert, disrupting chances before they can fully develop.
Wolcott continued to pick off blind passes to keep pressure in Gilbert’s end but remained scoreless early in the first half.
Play became increasingly physical and heated, forcing officials to bring out matching yellow cards to try to keep a good game from turning ugly.
Late in the half, Gilbert’s Devon Kulinski was given a penalty kick opportunity that he made good on to give the Jackets a 1-0 lead.
Yellowjacket Josh Hoxie showed good hustle off the draw and nearly sank a follow-up goal that was denied in close. Wolcott quickly brought play into Gilbert’s end and attempted to capitalize on a bit of defensive clumsiness that was diverted with an incredible stop by Williams.
The physical, grinding battle continued into the second half, as aggravation became apparent amongst the Wildcats. Gilbert continued to keep energy high and found some success when driving hard through the Wildcat defense, but continued to throw away chances on bad passes.
Gilbert’s Josh Hoxie proved to be an unrelenting thorn in Wolcott’s game, instigating handfuls of bad Wildcat penalties. Hoxie’s speed and clean but clearly agitating play conjured up a bit of trouble, when a midfield collision provided an opportunity for one Wildcat to try to slip a swift kick at the prostrate Hoxie.
Players on both sides quickly converged, but were stopped by officials and coaches before any regrettable action could unfold. A red card was issued to the Wildcats and tensions remained at a near boil.
The Yellowjackets began to win lots of little battles for possession and played high-confidence soccer late in the second half. Hoxie received plenty of physical attention from Wolcott, which kept their game off-balance as any momentum was endlessly interrupted with unnecessary penalties.
Gilbert held on to their first-half lead to take a narrow 1-0 home victory.
Girls
The Lady Jackets celebrated Senior Night with a one-sided 6-0 victory over Wolcott at Walker Field. Gilbert went to work right off the whistle, setting up in Wolcott’s end and keeping pressure constant, earning an early goal by Yellowjacket Jackie Vaccari.
Gilbert continued to find each other with clean passing and cycled the ball deep to generate multiple chances and shots on Wolcott’s net.
The Wildcat defense seemed hesitant to step up and challenge the Jacket offense, which cost them two more quick goals delivered by Vaccari within the first 20 minutes of the game.
Gilbert kept driving up the center, and Wolcott remained unable to clear the ball from their own end, leading to the fourth Yellowjacket goal of the half, tallied by Lindsey Dzielak. Wolcott trailed 4-0 heading into the break.
Yellowjacket head coach Moose Dzielak took the opportunity to have some of his top guns sit out and give his younger players some field experience, including a goalkeeper switch to start the second half.
Vaccari added her fourth goal of the game with a long drive from Gilbert’s end, going unchallenged to the net to increase the Jackets’ lead to 5-0.
Gilbert remained relentless on the offensive and capped their scoring for the evening with an effort from Meghan Dzielak, giving the Jackets a big 6-0 Senior Night victory at home.
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.