Latest News
Auto Repair
Blinds
Building/Remodeling
Floor Refinishing
Insulation
Landscaping
Landscaping
Lightning Rods
Moving
Overhead Doors
NORTH EAST — An executive session started the town of North East’s special joint meeting with the village of Millerton Thursday, Jan. 7.
“I’ve spoken with [Town Engineer] Ray Jurkowski and [Village Attorney] Michele [Haab], and our collective suggestion is that we go immediately into executive session to deal with issues with contamination,� Attorney to the Town Warren Replansky said. “There are valid grounds ... that are potentially a matter of prosecution and a possible future of litigation if it’s exposed to the public, as it could put people in peril.�
Both village and town board members agreed, and by 7:10 p.m. (the meeting began at 7 p.m.) they had exited the board room, moving upstairs to meet privately for the executive session.
The regular meeting resumed one hour later, at 8:04 p.m., once the executive session ended and all of the board members returned to the main meeting space.
“The issue at hand is that we have contaminated soils on the South Center Street water line,� Jurkowski said, explaining the matter to the public-at-large. “Part of an excavation taking place by village crews found contaminated soil based on visual and smell. Then two loads were taken off site, to Northeast Muffler, and then the owner smelled the odor and said he didn’t want any more. From that point the materials that were excavated were stockpiled and numbered and we notified the DEC [Department of Environmental Conservation] and they visited the site.�
In addition to the soil at the muffler shop, there is still soil at the original site. That soil borders the town’s highway garage on South Center Street and sits in a heap measuring roughly 4 feet high and 150 feet long. A new 10-inch water main was installed in that location before the soil was discovered to be contaminated; that main serves as a big loop running through the village, and services lines feeding out onto the rest of the water district.
One concern was whether the contamination made its way into the stream, although there was no evidence supporting such a theory. The engineer said it was recommended that plastic be placed over the contaminated soil and that it be tested, which it was. The soil was found to have petroleum in it, though not at high enough a level to prevent it from going back into the trench.
“It needs to be disposed of,� he said. “But it’s at the level of non-hazardous waste.�
Still, Jurkowski said, it’s excess material that has to be removed and the town’s haulers are looking at bringing it to an Albany landfill. The town received three bids to do so, ranging from $42 per ton to $48 per ton. The board approved the move, accepting the lowest bid from Pure Earth Disposal Group; it’s hoping to complete the removal by sometime this week. As part of the process the town will need to provide a report to the DEC, as well as manifests for the removal and disposal of the materials, to get closure of the spill.
Neither the town nor the village know the origins of the petroleum, nor are they going to attempt to find it out.
“It’s up to the DEC to do what they would like to do,� Jurkowski said.
“We do not know the source,� Mayor John Scutieri said. “That’s something we’ll just have to learn [when it’s discovered in the future].�
It was stated, however, that the petroleum was believed to have been derived from a gasoline product.
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.