Latest News
Auto Repair
Blinds
Building/Remodeling
Floor Refinishing
Insulation
Landscaping
Landscaping
Lightning Rods
Moving
Overhead Doors
NORTH CANAAN — Several months of meetings of the local six-member affordable housing steering committee have resulted in distribution of a town-wide survey of residents, analysis of the results, and the drafting of an affordable housing plan with six specified goals.
Goals being suggested include:
Support for first-time homebuyers and assisting existing homeowners with repairs and renovations to help them to remain in their homes;
Expanding housing options for seniors;
Supporting local employers by encouraging homeowners to create rental options, supporting creation of accessory apartments, and assisting residents facing the prospect of homelessness, directing them to existing resources.
The drafted plan is available for review and another survey is open for residents to complete, providing comments on the goals presented in the plan.
Planning consultant Jocelyn Ayer, director of the Litchfield County Center for Housing Opportunity, reviewed the process and the timetable at the regular monthly meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z), held on Monday, July 11.
Ayer reviewed some of the survey findings, including that 230 households are spending half of their income on housing. That statistic, Ayer noted, impacts local businesses and therefore the local economy.
Responses to the survey also indicated that 74% of residents and employers feel that housing costs discourage young families, and 57% saw an impact on numbers of people who work in town being able to live locally.
Ayer explained the role of the P&Z in the process is to review the plan and to certify that the proposed plan is consistent with the town’s Plan of Conservation and Development (POCD).
The P&Z agreed to review the proposed plan, offer suggestions for amendments and reach its determination at its monthly meeting in August.
In the meantime, Ayer urged residents and business owners to review the drafted plan and comment using an on-line survey found at www.surveymonkey.com/r/DRAFTHPNC.
The drafted plan is available for review on the town’s website page devoted to the affordable housing committee and another survey is open for residents to complete, providing comments on the goals presented in the plan.
Comments received through the survey will be considered as the final draft is being prepared to be ready by the end of the summer, Ayer explained.
According to state regulations, Ayer explained, 10% of a town’s housing stock needs to be affordable. At present, North Canaan stands at around 9%. Ayer noted that there are consequences in the form of state action for towns who fail to meet the 10% number.
Preliminary plans for Honey Hill development
Preliminary drawings for a condominium development on 114 acres bordered by the Housatonic River to hold 51 upscale homes were reviewed by George Johanneson of Allied Engineering in North Canaan. Three homes would front on Honey Hill and the remainder to be constructed in phases would stand along an interior road. There would also be hiking trails and a clubhouse, all to be governed by a homeowners’ association. Plans describe two septic pumping stations that would connect to lines leading to the town’s treatment facility. Or, the developers might decide on individual septic tanks for each home or every few homes. Johanneson said that the homes would likely be used as weekend or vacation homes by their owners.
P&Z Chairman Tim Abbott noted that if and when the application is brought forward for consideration by the P&Z, he would need to recuse himself because of his professional connection with the Housatonic Valley Association.
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.