Latest News
Auto Repair
Blinds
Building/Remodeling
Floor Refinishing
Insulation
Landscaping
Landscaping
Lightning Rods
Moving
Overhead Doors
PINE PLAINS — The Town Board had a full agenda at its business meeting, held on Thursday, Sept. 16. In addition to adopting new subdivision regulations, the board also took care of a number of other municipal matters.
ZBA alternates
One issue the board has been discussing for a number of months is the appointment of an alternate to the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA). It was mentioned that both residents Mike O’Neil and Kathleen Augustine are interested in the position; they have expressed their interest in the ZBA previously and discussed it with the Town Board. The board agreed unanimously to appoint both O’Neil and Augustine as alternates to the zoning board.
Dog licenses
The board then discussed the issue of dog licenses. All municipalities must now pass new local laws to keep in line with state laws, through the state’s Department of Agriculture and Markets. There are now stricter regulations, which still require all dogs be licensed, for which they must be current with their vaccines and rabies shots — that much hasn’t changed.
Attorney to the Town Warren Replansky said that in adopting the local law “there are certain decisions that have to be made by the Town Board.�
Replansky said he will review the state regulations with Town Clerk Judy Harpp, who is responsible for issuing dog licenses, and then decide what to recommend to the board.
Highway update
Highway Superintendent Barry Hay gave an update on his department. His crew just completed work on Myrtle Avenue, where the damaged and decrepit sidewalk was removed. Last year residents along the street presented a petition to the Town Board requesting the sidewalk be torn out, as it could be hazardous to pedestrians and cyclists. Those residents have sent letters of thanks and praise to Hay and the town for a job well done.
Town Supervisor Gregg Pulver then contributed to the highway report, saying that the school district has recently milled its parking lots, which leaves “cookies.� Cookies are the remnants of the torn up pavement.
“We get to screen the stuff that’s left over, and it’s some of the nicest roadable [sic] material,� Pulver said. “It saves us on material. We won’t need to buy 600 yards of material now and it’s actually the best material we can use. It’s better than gravel.�
“It’s the best stuff you can get, and we saved all around,� Hay said. “And we don’t have to truck in that extra gravel.�
The conversation was then steered toward winter and salt.
“If we’ve committed to 800 tons of salt, then you have to take 75 percent of it whether you use it or not,� Pulver explained to the rest of the board and those in attendance. “We’re taking in now what we didn’t use last winter. So we’re on the right track. We’re going to use that 300 tons [that we saved in ‘09-’10] but will use it in ‘10-’11.�
“It worked out pretty good for us,� Hay agreed.
Special meeting
The board concluded its meeting with an announcement that it will hold a special meeting on Thursday, Sept. 30, at 7:30 p.m., at Town Hall. The purpose of the meeting is for a public hearing on ideas for the town’s Community Development Block Grant application, and possibly to address a few miscellaneous items as well.
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.