Aradev LLC’s map of tree health based on Bartlett Tree Experts’ survey.
LAKEVILLE – The public hearing considering the redesign of the Wake Robin Inn has been continued to Dec. 2, following another round of critical commentary from residents at its fourth iteration on Nov. 18.
The major revelation of Monday’s meeting is Angela and William Cruger, whose property sits directly across from the Wells Hill Road entrance to the Inn, will now hold intervenor status in the proceedings, and will be represented by attorney Perley Grimes. As intervenors, the Crugers and associated representatives now hold party status, alongside the applicant, Aradev LLC, and the Planning and Zoning Commission.
The intervention, which Planning and Zoning Chair Michael Klemens attested was filed on the morning of Nov. 18, is concerned with the ecological ramifications of the project. Specifically, the petition states that the project is “likely to have the effect of unreasonably impairing or destroying the public trust in the natural resources of the state” regarding groundwater quality at the site and in adjacent areas, and in threatening Connecticut-listed plant species that may be present in the affected terrain.
The intervenors were allotted a section of the meeting to present their arguments, but Grimes stated that consistently changing plans on the part of the developers had delayed the completion of comprehensive surveys of the land. He affirmed that a group of five experts will be prepared to present their findings at the Dec. 2 continuation of the public hearing.
Klemens asked that the experts’ reports be filed as soon as possible to ensure all parties have sufficient time to review them before the meeting. Grimes affirmed that the reports will be available promptly.
Attorney Josh Mackey, representing the applicant, criticized the intervenors’ petition “coming at the 11th hour,” claiming that there will be little time to respond to the findings of the experts.
“It’s unfair and its highly prejudicial,” he said.
Bill Cruger, speaking in the public comment section, said that the experts’ reports will be available with all due speed. “It’s not intended to be prejudicial, it’s meant to be informative,” he said.
For the applicant’s part, landscape architect Mark Arigoni of SLR Consulting gave a presentation highlighting recent efforts by the developers to respond to concerns from the public and P&Z. The report largely focused on an updated tree plan, informed by a survey conducted by Bartlett Tree Experts, who were contracted by Aradev LLC.
The survey assessed the health of approximately 800 trees, from which a map was developed that color-coded each tree in the affected area based on the survey’s findings. Arigoni stated that it is their intention to “eliminate the removal of as many trees as feasible,” and that they will continue to consult with the arborist through the construction process.
P&Z likewise focused on the tree plan in their commentary, with Klemens requesting that the plan be updated to include common species names alongside taxonomic designations so that the public may engage with the survey more easily. He also asked that an invasive species management program be added to the plans. Other commissioners expressed that they would like to see more specific numbers on how many trees will be removed throughout the construction process.
During the public comment section, residents expressed that their concerns and suggestions from prior meetings had not been met with the updated plan, which had few alterations in design from those presented at the Oct. 16 meeting.
Freya Block said that the community’s concerns, such as dangerous traffic patterns, environmental damage and noise pollution, had not been addressed by Arigoni’s presentation. She asked P&Z to consider “the enormity and incongruity of the scale of this project for this community.”
Thomas Muldoon also questioned how such a development would fit within the village dynamic of Lakeville, while also doubting the practical aspects of the project. The development would necessitate a large workforce to move to a region that is difficult to live in on low wages, he argued. “Where’s the affordable housing?”
“It’s not whether it’s a great idea, it’s whether it’s a legal idea,” Klemens responded to Muldoon’s concerns.
After the Dec. 2 meeting, the hearing will likely continue to Dec. 10. “We’re really going to have to close the hearing on the 10th,” Klemens said.
State Sen. Stephen Harding
NEW MILFORD — State Sen. and Minority Leader Stephen Harding announced Jan. 20 the launch of his re-election campaign for the state’s 30th Senate District.
Harding was first elected to the State Senate in November 2022. He previously served in the House beginning in 2015. He is an attorney from New Milford.
In his campaign announcement, he said, “There is still important work to do to make Connecticut more affordable, government more accountable, and create economic opportunity. I’m running for reelection to continue standing up for our communities, listening to residents, and delivering real results.”
As of late January, no publicly listed challenger has filed to run against him.
The 30th District includes Bethlehem, Brookfield, Cornwall, Falls Village, Goshen, Kent, Litchfield, Morris, New Fairfield, New Milford, North Canaan, Salisbury, Sharon, Sherman, Warren, Washington, Winchester and part of Torrington.
MILLERTON — James (Jimmy) Cookingham, 51, a lifelong local resident, passed away on Jan. 19, 2026.
James was born on April 17, 1972 in Sharon, the son of Robert Cookingham and the late Joanne Cookingham.
He attended Webutuck Central School.
Jimmy was an avid farmer since a very young age at Daisey Hill and eventually had joint ownership of Daisey Hill Farm in Millerton with his wife Jessica.
He took great pride in growing pumpkins and sweet corn.
He was very outdoorsy and besides farming, loved to ride four wheelers, fish, and deer hunt. He also loved to make a roaring bonfire.
He was a farmer, friend, husband, father, son and brother. He will be missed by many.
He is survived by his father, Robert Cookingham, wife Jessica (Ball) Cookingham, daughters, Hailey Cookingham-Loiodice (Matt), Taylor Ellis-Tanner (Jimmy) and sister Brenda Valyou, as well as many cousins, nieces and nephews.
He is predeceased by his mother, Joanne (Palmer) Cookingham.
His daughter, Hailey, will always keep his legacy alive by their father-daughter antics, such as their handshake, nicknames and making “quacking noises” at each other.
Services/Memorials will be held at a later date.
The Kenny Funeral Home has care of arrangements.
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.