Latest News
Auto Repair
Blinds
Building/Remodeling
Floor Refinishing
Insulation
Landscaping
Landscaping
Lightning Rods
Moving
Overhead Doors
NORTH CANAAN — A potentially hazardous situation involving school buses and children in the center of town appears to have been resolved.
Students taking the bus to North Canaan Elementary School had been crossing the state highway (Main Street, also known as state Route 44) to wait for the bus.
A school crossing guard raised concerns that the children and their parents were crossing in front of traffic.
A new plan has evolved, after much debate. The students will now wait on the side of the road closest to their home, until the bus has arrived and turned on its flashing safety lights.
The bus stop serves students who live in the Station Place apartments; currently there are about eight. The apartments are on the side road behind businesses near the stop light in the center of the business district.
The children are now supposed to wait for the bus to arrive on the opposite side of the road (the vehicle will wait in front of the Raynard and Peirce Insurance office). Once the bus has stopped, the children can cross while the bus has its stop sign out and its red warning lights flashing.
Drivers should have plenty of time to notice and to stop for the bus, even those headed east around the sharp curve by the West Main Street intersection, and despite an unwillingness by the majority to heed speed limits.
The high rate speed of many motor vehicles traveling through the center of town is only one of the concerns raised in what has turned into a months-long conversation about student safety.
Veteran crossing guard Don Caranci has actually been expressing concerns about safety to the school, the Board of Education and the Board of Selectmen for several years now.
He said this week that he is finally satisfied everyone is doing the best they can there.
In addition to changing the location of the bus stop (which is the term used for where the children wait for the bus, not for where the bus actually stops), the school also made a change to the location of the manned crosswalk. It was moved from the West Main Street intersection to the Railroad Street junction, which has traffic and pedestrian signals.
Longstanding habits are hard to change, though. Even with the change to the crosswalk, and despite a letter sent home by North Canaan Elementary School Principal Rosemary Keilty, students, some escorted by parents, continued to jaywalk at the intersection.
Continuing efforts and conversations seem to have had the desired effect, however, and most community members now seem willing to follow the directives from the school.
North Canaan Resident State Trooper Jim Promotico also told The Journal he plans to spend more time monitoring the crosswalk. He hopes that his presence there will remind drivers of all the potential hazards in a town center.
He said he would, if the situation warrants it, not only give tickets to vehicles for moving violations but also to jaywalkers.
A crossing guard will remain in place at the corner. Keilty said she supports having that “extra set of eyes� to watch out for the students.
Many of the parties involved say that, once the weather warms up, they hope students will begin once again to walk to school, which could clear up the traffic concerns and also be better for their health.
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.