Latest News
Auto Repair
Blinds
Building/Remodeling
Floor Refinishing
Insulation
Landscaping
Landscaping
Lightning Rods
Moving
Overhead Doors
AMENIA — As an unannounced ending to the Nov. 5 public hearing for the town budget, a resolution was passed by the Town Board authorizing the application of a New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal Main Street Grant.
Mike Hagerty, the town’s grant writer, explained the proposal in further detail.
“We’re asking for $115,000,� he said, mentioning that applicants could apply for up to $500,000. The funds, if granted, would go toward “stimulating reinvestment in properties located within mixed-use commercial districts,� according to the resolution passed.
Hagerty said that the area in question is the historic gateway on upper East Main Street, where Fountain Square is.
“I’ve been meeting with all the businesses and talking with them,� he said. “A lot of the buildings are in a poor state of repair, and the area is a low- to moderate-income community.�
All those things, Hagerty said, make it more likely Amenia could obtain the grant.
This is the first opportunity towns have had to apply for the grant (in the past only nonprofit organizations were eligible). In total, $6.4 million is available throughout the state of New York to revitalize areas with a mix of residential and commercial zones. There are 21 buildings in the town’s target zone, which are split almost evenly between homes and businesses.
Possible repairs would involve streetscape projects such as repairing Fountain Square, which Hagerty said was an important area to the town.
“It’s where veterans gather, and also where they hold the annual Holiday of Lights,� he said, adding that town resident and architect Darlene Riemer did a substantial amount of volunteer work in the early 1990s on repairs to the square and that both Riemer and Councilwoman Victoria Perotti helped with the current grant. The area is at the intersection of three major state highways.
The revitalization outlined in the grant ties in with the comprehensive plan and the 2008 Amenia hamlet plan, which was just recently approved by the Town Board.
“Pretty much everyone agrees that there needs to be a more walkable community in Amenia,� Hagerty said. “There need to be more sidewalks.�
Hagerty estimated the various streetscape projects would total about $25,000 and he said the rest of the grant, if the town’s application is approved, would be up in the air. At least two buildings would have to be renovated, and the revitalization process could start with the gateway and work its way down.
“Everyone I’ve spoken to was interested,� Hagerty added, listing the library, antique shop and the bank as examples. The grant will pay for up to 75 percent of renovation costs. The remaining 25 percent could be matched with private funding or through other grants, such as the Community Development Block Grant.
The resolution was passed on Nov. 5, with all the Town Board present, because it was due on Nov. 13, and the town would not have had another chance to get it submitted on time. The Town Board would not have had a chance to meet again until its regular scheduled meeting on Nov. 13.
Hagerty said he had just recently found out about the grant and had been working hard to finish it in time for submission. All of this comes right after ground was finally broken on the Mechanic Street project, something Hagerty has been involved with for some time.
“It’s usually about three to six months before we’ll hear anything back,� Hagerty said about the NYS Main Street Grant. “I’ll stay in touch with them. They’re usually pretty good about letting you know why they chose who they did.�
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.