Known to many as horse country, the Village of Millbrook is also home to dairy and other farms, beagles and fox hunting, bucolic scenery and vineyards, as well as a sense of community and a love of arts both audio and visual, the latter two of which the Millbrook Arts Group (MAG) can proudly take a well deserved bow on.
Ann Gifford, MAG’s president, spoke recently about the nonprofit group in which she has long been involved. In fact, Gifford was the attorney that Robert Krall and Stan Morse went to when the idea of needing a group that would seek out entertainment first came up as a result of the Millbrook Band Shell having been built.
Krall was a member of the Lion’s Club, and having traveled extensively to other communities, he noted that many had band shells and provided entertainment to the community. With the help of the local Lion’s Club, the band shell got built, and the need to fill it with music meant that groups had to be found and contracted. Thus, in 1988, MAG was founded and incorporated as a nonprofit.
Over the years since its inception, MAG has brought music to Millbrook’s many venues, including children’s programs, poetry workshops and exhibitions, and has been involved in many art exhibits throughout the years.
One thing Gifford is especially proud of is that MAG collaborates with many other groups, including the Millbrook Library, the Millbrook Central School District, the Millbrook Farmers and Makers Market, and the Millbrook Rotary Club, among others. In 2023 alone, MAG helped with the UpState Art Open Studio Art Festival, the Hudson Valley Flamenco Festival and New Years Eve Millbrook, hiring and paying for the two music groups that entertained; and at least two children’s programs at the Millbrook Library. It sponsored the summer concerts at the band shell, the winter concerts at the library, several groups that performed at the Millbrook Farmers and Makers Market, and Music in the Streets.
All of this costs a lot of money. Gifford said MAG is doing well and is grateful for donations from the Tribute Garden, which has always given generously; a grant from the H.W. Wilson Foundation, most of which supports the library venues and the children’s events; and the estate of Nancy F. Perkins made a noteworthy donation. All other funding comes from local sources. Each May, a letter goes out to residents asking for support. Other means of fundraising include selling 50/50 raffle tickets at the concerts, along with hats and T-shirts.
“My thanks to the community who respond to our [annual fundraising] letter, we have been given so much support with gifts both big and small,” said Gifford. “You know that others appreciate your work, so they want to help. We believe every donation shows an interest in what we do.”
All of the work is done by the 16 members of the MAG board of directors via committees, and they meet in person about eight times per year. The board is composed of people from all walks of life, including businesspeople, educators and artists, although Gifford said that there is currently a large portion of artist volunteers, testimony to the fact that many artists are discovering the Millbrook community and its reverence toward the arts in all forms.
The next offering from MAG will be on Saturday, Feb 24, with the Taghanik String Quartet performing at the Millbrook Library. A reception will take place at 4:30 p.m., with the performance begins at 5 p.m.
From the 2023 Hudson Valley Flamenco Festival, August, at Millbrook Band Shell. Judith O'Hara Balfe
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.