Latest News
Auto Repair
Blinds
Building/Remodeling
Floor Refinishing
Insulation
Landscaping
Landscaping
Lightning Rods
Moving
Overhead Doors
WEBUTUCK — After absorbing the latest reports from the North East (Webutuck) Central School District, its Board of Education (BOE) assessed where the district stands in regard to school closings and the COVID-19 vaccine at a meeting on Monday evening, Jan. 25.
Based on recent conversations with the Dutchess County Department of Health (DOH), Superintendent of Schools Raymond Castellani said the DOH has moved past the idea of a COVID-19 testing program in school districts and is instead moving toward a vaccination program. He explained Webutuck was hoping the DOH and Governor Andrew Cuomo would allow school sites to be centers for vaccine distribution “so we can get our people vaccinated quickly.”
However, as the district quickly learned during the last few weeks, there have been concerns that New York State has had trouble with its rollout plan for vaccinations, leaving counties overburdened and many residents who are eligible for vaccines scrambling to find distribution sites while the admittedly inadequate vaccine supply is available.
In essence, Castellani said that, based on the discussions Webutuck has had with the DOH and the county, the state government is “woefully unprepared” and doesn’t have nearly enough vaccinations to distribute, though Webutuck is hoping the change of administration at the federal level will lead to vaccinations becoming more readily available. President Biden’s announcement last week that he plans to purchase 200 million doses of the vaccines for Americans offers hope that more shots will be on their way in 2021.
When asked by BOE members at the Jan. 25 meeting whether the state has addressed the issue of people who haven’t been vaccinated coming into the school buildings, Castellani said it hasn’t yet been addressed and while they can’t force people to get vaccinated, it’s highly recommended that they do.
Though the superintendent said he didn’t know what or how it can mandate in terms of vaccinations, he said that if and when Webutuck gets to a point where the district finds out that a certain number of people are choosing not to get vaccinated, it will have to work with the unions to find a solution that’s fair for all.
“We have to respect people’s rights, but by the same token, we have to have our buildings safe,” Castellani said.
However, he said the district has not crossed that bridge yet as it is already having trouble getting the people who want the vaccine to get the shot in their arm.
With Webutuck currently closed, Castellani said he’s been having conversations with his fellow superintendents in larger school districts throughout the county that have closed their school buildings to conduct contact tracing. Though he noted that Webutuck would be in the same boat if it was a larger school district, he attributed Webutuck’s decision to close to the fact that the district is located on one campus “on the same street” and with students riding “the same buses.” With more people coming into contact with one another, the contact tracing becomes vast, Castellani said.
“It is never an easy decision,” he continued. “It’s painstaking. Sometimes Robert is contact tracing with the principals upwards of 30, 40 people, and that takes more than one day.”
While discussing contact tracing, Farrier said it would be helpful for anyone in the Webutuck community who has changed their phone number to provide the district with their most current contact information so the district can update its system. To do so, call the Webutuck business office at 845-373-4100.
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.