Latest News
Auto Repair
Blinds
Building/Remodeling
Floor Refinishing
Insulation
Landscaping
Landscaping
Lightning Rods
Moving
Overhead Doors
MILLERTON - Village Trustee Marty Markonic wants to know how serious Millerton is about repairing its sidewalks. And he wants to know now, as he hopes to plan for sidewalk repair and replacement in the upcoming 2008-09 village budget. The questions are for how much, and for how long.
"Are we going to be capable of holding $15,000 a year for sidewalks, for 20 years?" Markonic asked, adding that totals roughly $300,000, and the village would have to take out a BAN (Bond Anticipation Note) to afford the expense.
The question seemed to throw the other village trustees, who said that BANs are usually taken out for a five-year period.
"We could make a plan next year to take X amount of dollars out for sidewalks because if it's only five years on a BAN [it's not so bad]," Trustee Anne Veteran said. "But 20 years is committing a long time. I would rather see us put a plan in place for the next administration so it can pick up and keep going. You're not going to do all of it in one year."
But Markonic said money doesn't stretch very far when it comes to infrastructure improvements like sidewalks.
"Three-hundred thousand dollars doesn't get you a whole village of sidewalks," he said. "You could use $300,000 in one summer."
"But to commit out for 20 years seems like a lot," Veteran said.
"I think what we need to do is to come up with a statement of how much sidewalk we mean to repair," Trustee Yosh Schulman said. "We need to say, the cost is this and how do we pay for it? I think we ought to be realistic. If all we're doing is peeling up and putting sidewalk back I think we would be surprised how much we can do."
"It's never going to happen," Veteran said.
"It's a lot easier to identify the sidewalks that don't need to be replaced than those that do," Markonic said, adding that in some locations the existing sidewalk is actually sinking, making it dangerous for pedestrians.
"I'm not disagreeing that we need to do it," Veteran said. "But how are we really, really going to do it?"
"Well if you're going to spend $15,000 a year on sidewalks, why not lump it all together and spend [$300,000 over 20 years]?" Markonic asked.
The board agreed there are also other considerations, such as additional infrastrucure improvements - putting access lines, sewer lines or electric lines under the sidewalks.
"We're looking to cover the cost of the sidewalk, but since it's open, how about taking advantage of it?" Schulman asked.
Markonic responded that sewer and water lines both go through the roads, not sidewalks. The mayor added that utility companies don't like to go through the expense of placing their lines underground unless it's absolutely necessary.
By discussion's end Markonic had reconsidered his initial suggestion.
"I maybe went too far with the amount of money to take out," he said. "But I do think that we should look into a BAN. We'll never get anywhere if we just fix 300 to 400 feet [of sidewalk at a time]."
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.