Latest News
Auto Repair
Blinds
Building/Remodeling
Floor Refinishing
Insulation
Landscaping
Landscaping
Lightning Rods
Moving
Overhead Doors
Legal Notice
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Salisbury will hold a Public Hearing on Application #2024-0262 by Aaron & Alycia Zimmerman for a Variance, 16 Woodland Drive, Lakeville CT, Map 35, Lot 6 per Section 304, 305.1 and Table 300.2 of the Salisbury Zoning Regulations. The hearing will be held on Tuesday, October 8, 2024 immediately after the regularly scheduled business of the meeting or at 5:30PM, whichever occurs first. This meeting will be held virtually via Zoom (Remote Meeting by Live Internet Video Stream and Telephone), where interested persons can listen to & speak on the matter. The application, agenda and meeting instructions will be listed at www.salisburyct.us Written comments may be submitted to the Land Use Office before 4:00PM on Monday, October 10, 2024, Salisbury Town Hall, 27 Main Street, P.O. Box 548, Salisbury, CT or via email to landuse@salisburyct.us Paper copies maybe reviewed, by appointment, Monday through Thursday between the hours of 8:00AM and 3:30PM.
Salisbury Zoning
Board of Appeals
Lee Greenhouse
Secretary
09-26-24
10-03-24
Notice of Decision
Town of Salisbury
Planning & Zoning Commission
Notice is hereby given that the following actions were taken by the Planning & Zoning Commission of the Town of Salisbury, Connecticut on September 16, 2024:
Approved with Conditions- Special Permit Application #2024-0255 by owner Pricilla and Alan McCord, for an accessory apartment in accordance with Section 208 of the regulations. The property is shown on Salisbury Assessor’s Map 30 as Lot 04 and is located at 514 Wells Hill Road, Lakeville.
Approved - Special Permit Application #2024-0260 for a Modification to Special Permit #2022-0174 by Nick Brazzale, for Contractor Equipment Storage in accordance with Section 213.4 of the regulations. The property is shown on Salisbury Assessor’s Map 54 as Lot 58 and is located at 17 Railroad Street, Salisbury. The owner of the property is Vanessa Brazzale.
Any aggrieved person may appeal these decisions to the Connecticut Superior Court in accordance with the provisions of Connecticut General Statutes §8-8.
Town of Salisbury
Planning & Zoning Commission
Martin Whalen, Secretary
09-26-24
NOTICE TO CREDITORS
ESTATE OF
ANN MARIE NONKIN
Late of Salisbury
(24-00373)
The Hon. Jordan M. Richards, Judge of the Court of Probate, District of Litchfield Hills Probate Court, by decree dated September 12, 2024, ordered that all claims must be presented to the fiduciary at the address below. Failure to promptly present any such claim may result in the loss of rights to recover on such claim.
The fiduciary is:
c/o Louise F Brown, Esq.
Ackerly Brown LLP
5 Academy Street
P.O. Box 568
Salisbury, CT 06068
Beth L. McGuire
Chief Clerk
09-26-24
NOTICE TO CREDITORS
ESTATE OF
ELIZABETH A. LEIFERT
Late of Norfolk
(24-00388)
The Hon. Jordan M. Richards, Judge of the Court of Probate, District of Litchfield Hills Probate Court, by decree dated September 12, 2024, ordered that all claims must be presented to the fiduciary at the address below. Failure to promptly present any such claim may result in the loss of rights to recover on such claim.
The fiduciary is:
Lawrence A. Leifert
c/o Matthew J Lefevre
Law Offices of Matthew Lefevre, Esq PC, 38 Woodland Street, Hartford, CT 06105
Megan M. Foley
Clerk
09-26-24
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.