Latest News
Auto Repair
Blinds
Building/Remodeling
Floor Refinishing
Insulation
Landscaping
Landscaping
Lightning Rods
Moving
Overhead Doors
CORNWALL — It was a rather short town meeting, lasting only about 30 minutes — but it was a particularly fruitful one. About two dozen residents gathered at Cornwall Consolidated School on Oct. 23 to hear the good news that the town has weathered the economic woes of the past year, and that things are looking up.
The town is finding itself on the receiving end of an influx of money, from grants and a bequest (see story, this page).
More funds for roadwork
The meeting agenda included voter authorization to allocate $110,000 from the town’s capital projects account for repairs to Great Hollow and Great Hill roads, with the assurance that grant funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act will be available to reimburse the account.
No sooner was a motion made and seconded on the question, than it was amended, and the amount was raised to $150,000.
First Selectman Gordon Ridgway explained that, just a few days prior, he received a phone call informing him that there was unclaimed funding, and that Cornwall would get a portion of it totaling about $36,000.
That led to the obvious question by residents of why the project should cost more, just because more money is available.
Ridgway said the original funds would not have covered the cost of doing the entire lengths of the two roads. The additional $36,000 will allow for repaving and guardrail upgrades possibly as far as College Hill Road.
Cornwall resident Roger Kane has been hired as a consultant on the project.
Ridgway went on to tell a rather amusing story of bureaucratic logic, with the ultimate answer being he is not really sure why these particular roads were targeted under the program.
“There are two possible scenarios,� he said. “The project was based originally on improving roads that connect state roads. These two roads actually connect Route 4 and Route 202 in Milton.�
The funny part is that these roads do not generally see through traffic — and improvements are not likely to change that. Milton is a historic village between Cornwall and Litchfield that is hardly a destination and is too far off the beaten path for people to even pass through at random.
“There is not a huge gridlock situation in Milton,� Ridgway said, “and we don’t intend to create one with this project.�
The second theory is that the roads connect two state parks:Mohawk Ski Area and Mohawk Pond. Ridgway noted that Great Hollow Road is actually State Route 480. (Roads from which a state park is entered, including connector roads to parks and airports, are designated as state service roads.)
“We’re not sure which theory tipped the balance in our favor, and we don’t care.�
Town report, other items
Also approved at the meeting was the town report, which features a photo of the highly successful West Cornwall Farmers’ Market on its cover.
A five-year plan for capital spending, totaling more than $2 million dollars, was approved with little discussion. It includes allocations for road work, fire and highway trucks, town building improvements and an annual $40,000 set aside for the school.
Fees for building permits will rise, to allow that town office to continue to be self-sustaining. Zoning permit fees will also rise, from $25 to $75. The votes approving these motions were unanimous.
An ordinance was put into place to help protect town recreational areas (the Village Green, Foote Fields and Hammond Beach). In recent years, there have been several cases of vandalism — mostly grass torn up by vehicles. In those cases, state police have been involved.
But for minor infractions, such as littering, the town had no way to take action without calling the police. The ordinance allows town officials to enforce rules at those sites, and to levy fines of up to $250 per violation.
The meeting was also a chance for Ridgway to publicly thank two long-term volunteers who are taking a break. Barbara Gold will not seek another term on the Board of Education. Annie Kosciusko will step down from the Planning and Zoning Commission after years of work, including the recently completed draft of a revised Town Plan of Conservation and Development that will be the subject of public comment in November.
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.