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.