While catching up on the local-local-local scene, I checked back on CT Siting Council docket #388, and found the "Certification Package" under "Final Decision"--

Section 1-225 of the Connecticut Freedom of Information Act requires that votes from public meetings be available within 48 hours and minutes be available within seven days. Minutes of public meetings are important for residents to be able to find out what is going on in their town. They are also important to journalists who do not have enough time to cover local events. In some cases, they become part of important legal discussions.

The Connecticut Siting Council is currently considering an application by AT&T to put a cell tower in Woodbridge. On July 28th, attorney Keith Ainsworth on behalf of the Woodbridge Conservation Commission submitted an application to intervene in the proceedings.

AT&T objected, relying heavily on the minutes of the Woodbridge Conservation Commission, including noting that the June 17th minutes of the Conservation Commission meeting is not yet available. The July 15th minutes are also not yet available.

On Wednesday evening, the Board of Selectmen met to consider a request from the Woodbridge Conservation Commission for the Town to participate in funding for intervener status re Siting Council Docket #388. If a vote were taken, the results of the vote would not be required to be available until this evening at the earliest and the minutes are not required until next Wednesday. Nonetheless, there have been subsequent filings in the docket concerning the meeting.

Part of AT&T’s objection asserts that the Conservation Commission’s Intervention Request is procedurally defective and lacks authority. They refer to the agenda item at the Board of Selectman meeting to consider the Conservation Commissions request saying

We are advised by a member of the public attending the meeting that the Board of Selectmen took no action on the Conservation Commission’s request.

Keith Ainsworth, on behalf of the Conservation Commission replied,

The Conservation Commission was authorized to take action to file the intervention before the Siting Council and expend town funds in doing so by the Board of Selectmen last evening. AT&T represented falsely that selectmen failed to act on the request

AT&T responded

Attorney Ainsworth’s allegations of a misstatement of fact which was conveyed to us by a member of the public is not accompanied by any independently verifiable facts of his own (i.e. based on discussions with the Town’s Board of Selectmen). As such, the Council may want to call the First Selectman directly to ascertain what if any formal action the Board of Selectmen did or did not take last night.

The response continues noting

The request previously submitted by Attorney Ainsworth lacks a resolution from the Conservation Commission adopted by a duly noticed public meeting of its own authorizing such action to seek intervenor status in Docket 388.

Agendas and meeting minutes matter. They are a way to make sure that everyone’s voice is heard and this can become very important when the lawyers get involved.

Update: Attorney Ainsworth provided a correction which states:

The Board of Selectmen did not take action on the resolution to fund the Conservation but instead declared that the Conservation had its own professional services line item from which it could draw for the funding of this intervention.

He states that he was misinformed. He goes son to withdraw from representation of the Woodbridge Conservation Commission in this matter.

The Connecticut Siting Council has now denied the application to intervene 'on the bases of untimeliness and lack of standing'.

As a final note, Service List indicates that the Connecticut Siting Council has used U.S. Mail to deliver the documents.

The Energy & Technology 3/18 public hearing that included two bills concerning cell phone tower placement and the CT Siting Council was cablecast live on Connecticut Network.

The CT General Assembly's Energy & Technology Committee has a couple of hearings coming up next week. The hearing on Thursday, 3/18 will include Raised Senate Bill (RSB)-461, An Act Concerning Siting Council Proceedings and Decisions and RHB-5504 AAC Siting of Cell Phone Towers near Schools
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2010/TOB/s/pdf/2010SB-00461-R00-SB.pdf
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2010/TOB/h/pdf/2010HB-05504-R00-HB.pdf

On page 8 of SB-461 (which as usual rewrites the statutes, sometimes just for grammar) there is a section of interest to those who attended the Jan. 9 CSC hearing:

Sec. 2. Section 16-50gg of the general statutes is repealed and the
following is substituted in lieu thereof (Effective July 1, 2010):

When notifying a municipality pursuant to section 16-50l of an
application for a telecommunications tower in said municipality, the
Connecticut Siting Council shall request that the municipality provide
to said council, within thirty days, any location preferences or criteria
for the siting of said telecommunications tower. The council may
consider regional location preferences from neighboring
municipalities.

If SB-461 passes (and will anything pass in a short session with budget deficit & fall elections looming over all?), it would not take effect until July. So it would have no effect on the upcoming Litchfield Turnpike decision. But it's interesting that this twist came up.

Now, about HB-5504, another 8-page rewrite of statutes, check page 3:

(G) In the case of a facility described in subdivision (6) of subsection
(a) of section 16-50i that is (i) proposed to be installed on land under
agricultural restriction, as provided in section 22-26cc, that the facility
will not result in a material decrease of acreage and productivity of the
arable land, or (ii) proposed to be installed on land that is near a
school, as defined in section 10-154a, that the facility will be not less
than seven hundred fifty feet from such school.

Members of the public may send their testimony (opinions, comments) on these bills in writing, even if they don't truck up to Hartford to speak at the hearing (time & room to be determined). E&T asks for 20 (hard)copies of testimony to be delivered to the committee office at Rm 3900, Legislative Office Building, Hartford, CT 06106 by 11:00 a.m. of the hearing date.

Last week, the Connecticut Siting Council held hearings in Woodbridge about a request by AT&T to erect a cellphone tower at 1900 Litchfield Turnpike in Woodbridge. This evening will be the first operating budget presentation for the 2011 budget. I tend to write about many such events as news events somewhat disconnected from regular people’s real lives. I worry that this style of writing might end up dominating the Woodbridge Citizen. Discussions about budgets might easily get reduced to amounts spent or percentages changed in the budget. Yet decisions about where to place cellphone towers and about town budgets have real effects on real people’s lives.

On Saturday, my daughter Fiona and I went for a short hike on one of the Bishop West Trails. We started at the parking lot of the Thomas Darling House. Even before we got onto the trail, Fiona and I were talking about the town of Woodbridge. Fiona is a student in the multi-age group at Beecher Road School. This year, they’ve been studying blue birds. They’ve learned about how the habitat has changed over the past few centuries. The idea of seeing a house that was built around 1772 and learning more about her town over two hundred years ago was exciting to her and she said she would talk with her teachers to see if her class could come visit the Darling House some time.

We crossed the State Highway and through the Boy Scout’s Camp Whiting. The smell of campfires wafted across the trail and Fiona reminisced about eating marshmallows on camping trips. A little further along the trail, we found some large rock outcroppings that Fiona will ask her teachers about. We crossed a small stream and headed up the ridge. Through the trees, we could see the powerlines that had been run through town before we moved here. Somewhere nearby is where AT&T wants to place the cellphone tower.

As we approached the quarry, we met hikers on their way back. They passed on information about climbing through the tunnel to get into the quarry; a little bit of information we would have missed. It made the hike an even greater adventure and we passed the information on to other hikers we met on the return leg of our trip. I hope that the people of Woodbridge will find the Woodbridge Citizen a useful tool for passing on little tips like this.

How much money should the town spend on maintaining roads, on supporting conservation, both of natural beauty and of our history? How much money should be spent on human services and on education? Over the coming weeks, we will discuss these issues in great detail at various town meetings. Yet as I sit in cramped meeting rooms, I will keep the images of the hike in my memory.

What visions of Woodbridge will you bring to town meetings discussing our budget?

Today, I received copies of the transcripts for the State of Connecticut Siting Council hearings that took place on January 12th concerning the proposed cell tower to be located at 1900 Litchfield Turnpike in Woodbridge, Docket No. 388. They are attached to this post for those interested. Additional information about the proceedings can be found on the Connecticut Siting Council website.

It is worth noting the people wishing to make a written comment about the proceedings have until February 12th to submit their comments to the State of Connecticut Siting Council. In addition, recordings of the hearings are broadcast on WGATV and can be checked out of the Woodbridge Library.

You all know that Bethany and Woodbridge are two different places. Have you thought about how?

On Monday evening, the Democratic Town Committee met to conduct regular business. In addition, there was a Democratic Town Caucus which elected seventy five members to the Democratic Town Committee for a two year term.

The town committee’s nominating committee presented its slate of candidates, which the committee as a whole then approved. The meeting then moved into the Democratic Town Caucus where the slate was quickly approved. The members of the newly elected Democratic Town Committee are largely the same as before, with a few new additions. Karen Cusick, a member of the Library Commission and former Democratic Town Chair in Seymour, Richard Kruger, a member of the GAT Commission and former Democratic Town Chair of Ansonia, and Marissa Von Beeden, who is also a member of the Library Commission were voted on to the Democratic Town Committee.

The town committee then resumed its regular meeting. First Selectman Ed Sheehy reported events in town. He reported that the Board of Selectmen voted unanimously to suggest a different location for the proposed cellphone tower on Litchfield turnpike. It was reported that the Amity Board of Education had again discussed the possibility of a cell phone tower at the high school, but there remained opposition by the board. First Selectman Sheehy noted that the Connecticut Siting Council would be holding a hearing at the Center on Tuesday to address this.

Mr. Sheehy also spoke about the Wednesday Board of Selectmen meeting where they were scheduled to award the bid on the repairs to the exterior of the former fire house. Elia Alexiades of the Fire Commission reported that the Fire Department has received its new tanker truck. Sen. Crisco reported on events in Hartford, noting that the deficit continues to increase and the there have been talks about trying to find ways to use stimulus funds to address the deficit. There was also discussion about another effort to get the May municipal elections changed to November for the small number of municipalities, including Woodbridge, that still hold municipal elections.

The next order of business was a presentation by Josh Hershman, son of DTC member Peter Hershman, who is considering running for State Representative in the 114th District which includes Woodbridge, Derby and Orange. Josh has recently graduated from Muhlenberg College and is studying law at University of Connecticut. It was noted that Woodbridge will have six delegates at the State Representative convention and Orange and Derby will each have four delegates. The dynamics of the race, should Rep. Klarides decide to run for a statewide office instead of for reelection as State Representative.

Finally, there was a discussion about current and expected vacancies in various town commissions, including one on Zoning Board of Appeals and one in Human Services. There was also a brief discussion about the election of officers of the Town Committee which should take place in May.