SHARON — The Housy Juniors hosted the second game of the Babe Ruth summer baseball league at Veterans’ Field in Sharon on June 27. They fought hard against Barkhamsted, but ultimately fell to their opponent, 9-5.
The Housy team consists of teens from Region One towns: Sharon, Salisbury, Kent, Cornwall, North Canaan, and Falls Village. Players range in age from 13 to 15 and learn from the experienced coaching and invested teammates that summer baseball offers.
Fans surrounded the field on a cool and windy afternoon as Braeden Duncan, a rising sophomore from Housatonic Valley Regional High School, took the mound to start the game. He was able to help Housy keep a tight first inning, letting one run squeeze by.
Only able to get a few players on base, the Juniors had a slow start at bat and were unsuccessful in scoring any runs in the first inning.
At the top of the second, Duncan’s strong pitching locked out their opponents, and then Housy got on the board in the bottom of the inning. The Juniors took a 2-1 lead with runs from both Hunter Conklin and Wes Allyn.
Barkhamsted came out strong at the top of the third and were able to get their first two hitters on base. As the inning progressed, the two athletes slowly made their way around the diamond to score two runs.
Both teams in the Babe Ruth League laid it all on the line, including Brooker Cheney seen sliding head-first into second base.Copey Rollins
A pitching change put Hunter Conklin on the mound for Housy. Barkhamsted was able to sneak in one more run before Conklin struck them out in a key moment with the bases loaded, putting an end to their high-scoring inning.
Barkhamsted kept its momentum, completely blocking out Housy at the bottom of the third. Housy, however, struck back with relief pitcher Wyatt Bayer at the top of the fourth getting a pair of strikeouts before tagging a Barkhamsted player at first base.
Housy was only able to get one run in, by Brooker Cheney, in the bottom of the fourth. However, the Juniors started the fifth inning strong, and with clutch tags on the first two batters at first before striking out a third.
At the bottom of the fifth, Allyn hit a rocket deep in the outfield, and with a sacrifice bunt from Grafton Reilly, Housy was able to score yet another run bringing the game to 6-4 and chipping away at Barkhamsted’s lead. Backed by the motivation from his team, Bayer worked hard at the mound, striking out three Barkhamsted batters again.
Wyatt Bayer came in as the relief pitcher for Housy. Despite some serious heat and hustle from Bayer, Barkhamsted won 9-5.Copey Rollins
Housy was unable to make up any ground at the bottom of the sixth and Barkhamsted had a strong seventh inning, getting three runs off of the fatigued home team.
As the sun started to go down and the field got cooler, Housy got ready to make a big push at the end of the seventh. Barkhamsted pushed harder and was able to close out the game 9-5.
The teams stayed close throughout the whole game with each working hard to prevent the other from gaining any momentum. After the game, Housy coach John Conklin said, “I see growth every single game,” as he looked forward to further honing the team’s skills in their game against Tri Town on Saturday, June 29.
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.