SALISBURY — The second round of the public hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission on Aradev LLC’s application for a special permit to redevelop the Wake Robin Inn in Lakeville featured changes on the plans from the applicant, intensified opposition from neighbors, and criticisms of the commission’s process.
The hearing was continued to Wednesday, Oct. 16, 6 p.m. on Zoom.
P&Z chair Michael Klemens, in introductory remarks, said “we regulate use, not users” and that the qualifications of the applicant are not in the commission’s purview.
He noted that the commission can require bonding and has other ways of ensuring that a “project is completed in a satisfactory manner.”
He warned against speculation about future uses of the property. In particular, he addressed rumors that the property would be subsequently converted to a religious use.
Klemens said he found this alarming because the town could find itself in danger of violating the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000.
Citing a case in Cromwell, in which the town was subject of a punitive judgment of $5 million (later reduced to $2 million), Klemens cautioned “This is not an abstraction.”
Mark Arrigoni of SLR Consulting took the lead in presenting revised plans in response to comments from the public and from the commission at the first session of the public hearing Sept. 3.
Rendering Courtesy Salisbury Planning & Zoning CommissionRendering above shows a revised driveway entry and exit along Route 41.
Changes included: Reworking the height of the main hotel building and expansion to be lower than the maximum allowed by regulations; moving the exercise equipment to the main building and out of the spa building; adding a vestibule and limiting doors and windows on most of the event barn building to cut down on noise; fencing and a retaining wall along Wells Hill Road to cut down on visibility from the surrounding neighborhood.
The item that received the most attention was Aradev’s proposal to change the front access to the property on Sharon Road (Route 41), adding a separate road and exit off the existing drive.
During discussion commissioners asked if parking, especially at the pool and spa area on the Wells Hill Road side of the property, couldn’t be reduced more.
Other suggestions included moving the cottages to the Wells Hill side and relocating the pool/spa or the event barn, and enclosing the event barn porch with glass designed to deaden sound.
Public comment was again uniformly negative, although the intensity varied.
One suggestion from Mark Hochberg, that the developers meet directly with the neighborhood group or groups, received a positive response from Klemens, and, toward the end of the meeting, from Aradev attorney James Mackey, who accepted the offer on behalf of his client and provided contact information.
Neighbors from Sharon Road and Wells Hill Road objected to the potential for increased traffic and warned of accidents; the extra load on the town’s sewer system; light pollution; noise pollution; late night events; the look of the proposed fencing along Wells Hill Road (one resident said it reminded her of the San Diego Freeway).
Residents questioned the validity of the traffic study provided by the applicant; wondered aloud about the applicants’ bona fides and business plan; and criticized the commission’s process.
At several points, Klemens and Land Use Director Abby Conroy had to ask participants to stop using the Zoom webinar “chat” feature for anything other than technical problems.
One criticism found a sympathetic reception. Angela Cruger said it was impossible to read all of the relevant materials, especially when they are added to the town website days or hours before the hearing.
Klemens agreed with that, saying the commissioners have the same problem.
He asked Mackey, the Aradev attorney, if his client would commit to getting all materials submitted a week before the hearing resumes on Oct. 16. Mackey said yes.
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.