Legislative Program Review and Investigations Committee
CSC PROCESS AND OUTCOMES
FINDINGS
¬ The Connecticut Siting Council adheres to its statutory mandates and timeframes.
¬ Improvements can be made in the publishing of hearing notices to promote public participation.
¬ CSC decisions mention the statutorily mandated elements in varying degrees.
¬ Evidence of independent staff analysis is not always clear.
¬ The written opinions tend to focus on discussion and rationale on the viability of the chosen site with little discussion given to why the alternative sites or designs would not work.
¬ The council relies upon institutional memory and does not periodically analyze and track outcomes.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The council must advertise its public hearing notice at least once within the two week period prior to the actual hearing date.
2. Written council decisions should be structured in a format that clearly outlines the criteria used and provides evidence of independent analysis. Council decisions should state with particularity the basis for each decision as to each disputed issue, and the manner in which the statutory criteria were considered in arriving at such decision, including where applicable, the specific evidence relied upon, and the reasons for the reliance.
The decisions should also contain more discussion as to the council position on opposing party claims and more explanation as to why alternatives are not chosen.
3. A summary digest of council decisions must be developed and maintained by October 1, 2001.
CSC INTERACTION WITH MUNICIPALITIES & OTHER INTERESTED GROUPS
FINDINGS
¬ The municipal role is statutorily dictated by the point in the siting process and changes depending on the type of facility involved.
¬ CSC files indicate the statutorily mandated applicant and municipal consultations at the pre-application phase are taking place. However, the level of discussion in the written CSC decisions varies.
¬ The council has rarely exercised its statutory authority to override a local regulatory decision in siting energy facilities.
¬ The council has exclusive siting jurisdiction of cellular telecommunication towers. Municipalities do not have a regulatory role in these decisions.
¬ The council routinely grants municipal requests for measures to diminish the visual impact of telecommunication towers.
¬ The program review survey results of 121 municipalities gave the Connecticut Siting Council generally positive ratings.
¬ The council's primary charge is to remain neutral and objective in siting facilities whose effects have statewide significance and transcend municipal boundaries.
¬ Given the contested case nature of the siting process, there will always be inherent tension in the proceedings.
¬ Current opportunities for municipal and public participation during the siting process are, in general, sufficient.
¬ The council allows public participation at its discretion. This discretion may sometimes be perceived as bias or have an otherwise negative impact.
¬ The current CSC system of compliance provides limited follow-up and monitoring of sited facilities.
RECOMMENDATIONS
4. CSC must include in each decision a summary of any municipal consultation and recommendations.
5. CSC should establish a more structured schedule for follow-up and monitoring inspections and as much as possible incorporate other interested government agencies such as local municipal planning and zoning authorities or the state Department of Environmental Protection.
CSC JURISDICTION
FINDINGS
¬ It is not known whether the council's ability to adhere to statutory mandates and timeframes would be compromised if the present regulatory status or industry climate in any of the CSC facility jurisdictions changed.
¬ Current state law grants exclusive jurisdiction over cellular telecommunication towers to CSC and by default grants municipalities control over the siting of other telecommunications facilities.
¬ Legislative efforts to change the current telecommunication siting structure have failed in recent years.
¬ The bifurcation of jurisdiction in the siting of telecommunications facilities has caused controversy and has been the subject of a pending federal lawsuit.
¬ Comprehensive information gathering is essential to properly promote tower sharing and reduce proliferation.
¬ Compared to other states, Connecticut is unique in its siting authority. However, no one model or organizational structure appears to offer more or less benefits than the Connecticut Siting Council.
RECOMMENDATIONS
6. The program review committee recommended municipal planning and zoning boards have siting jurisdiction over PCS telecommunications facilities. The Connecticut Siting Council may participate as an intervenor in any such planning and zoning board proceedings. Municipal planning and zoning boards shall establish timeframes for these proceedings.
7. CSC must develop a method of collecting information on all telecommunications towers in Connecticut, and establish and maintain a statewide inventory of these telecommunications towers.