Cell Phone Towers Coming to Alton Bay

[Rocky]

Originally Posted by Grant

Sure, the "tree" cell phone towers are fugly, but are the gaudy McMansions devouring Lake shoreline any prettier? Honestly? Folks are more willing to ensure ocean-going 30+ ft. cigarette boats blasting by their shores at 60+ mph than they are a relatively inconspicuous tower. Frankly, I'd rather see fewer BMF boats (and their trailers along 93), and enjoy some better cell reception.

Just MHO...

I'll second that!!

[Tired of Waiting]

Originally Posted by Mee-n-Mac

Well you can blame it on us.

OK Mee-n-Mac it's all your fault

To tell you the truth I hate the looks of them. Being an outside person I like the nice prestine woods and view, I like lakes with no homes on them but I get neither. I don't have a cell phone and never have. I hate to be interrupted when I don't want to be.

But as some say, progress is forcing it upon us just like all the other unsightly views we now have to put up with. To a person like myself the world is getting uglier all the time with objects of "progress."

All I wish for is that the towns that permit them control where they are put, how they look, read how high etc. and that the companies that own them abide by the wishes of the folks who live around them. I know, I'm in a dream world. It might be, but it's getting uglier and further away from the dream.

ToW

[mcdude]

Results of the October 10 Planning Board Meeting.....

The Baysider

.....The news was both good and bad for the applicants, with the Planning Board members finding that the Roberts Knoll site, on Route 28, had little visual impact, while the Miramichie Hill site, on East Side Drive, was visible from many viewsheds, especially from Lake Winnipesaukee.

Planning board member Jeanne Crouse said there was "no way to enter or exit Alton Bay" and not plainly see the balloons on Miramichie Hill.

But the impact on the viewshed wasn't the only thing Planning Board members took issue with. They were unanimous in finding that the applicants did not investigate the possibility of a network of smaller towers to provide adequate coverage, and the board also found that the applicants failed to make adequate inquiries to local property owners to compile a list of possible sites. Both of those complaints, and the fact that both proposed towers exceed the limit of 10 feet above the average tree canopy, and that the Miramichie tower negatively affects the viewshed, all violate the town's new telecommunications ordinance.

Planning Board Chairman Jeremy Dube said the "spirit" of the new ordinance is for the town to have coverage, but for that coverage to be achieved by many shorter towers, instead of a few taller towers.

Planning Board Member Tom Hoopes elaborated, saying the ordinance seeks to "make facilities available all over town, as long as they are invisible."

Donald Cody, director of operations for Industrial Communications, said he was "willing to work" with the town on disguising the towers as trees, but he wasn't as excited about continuing to pursue other locations, or the possibility of using more numerous, but shorter, towers in place of the two 120-foot towers he has planned. "The by-law asks that we notify potential sites within the area. We have done that. We have looked at alternative sites, there simply aren't any alternative sites," Cody said.

After the meeting on Oct. 10, the boards weren't sure what to do next. The Planning Board made its findings, but was counseled by the town attorney Mark Sessler to not deny the site plan yet, but simply table the discussion until the Zoning Board of Adjustment could look at the applications. However, ZBA member Timothy Kinnon noted that, until the Planning Board has formally denied a site plan, the ZBA has no legal framework to address the case.

"This whole thing is weird – it's all Attorney Sessler's weaving," Dube said.

The Planning Board voted to continue the meeting until it could gather more explicit directions from Sessler.

[GWC...]

Originally Posted by mcdude

Results of the October 10 Planning Board Meeting.....

Planning Board Member Tom Hoopes elaborated, saying the ordinance seeks to "make facilities available all over town, as long as they are invisible."

After the meeting on Oct. 10, the boards weren't sure what to do next. The Planning Board made its findings, but was counseled by the town attorney Mark Sessler to not deny the site plan yet, but simply table the discussion until the Zoning Board of Adjustment could look at the applications. However, ZBA member Timothy Kinnon noted that, until the Planning Board has formally denied a site plan, the ZBA has no legal framework to address the case.

"This whole thing is weird – it's all Attorney Sessler's weaving," Dube said.
The Baysider

It would seem that Alton needs to be renamed Sesslerton...

[mcdude]

A little bit of background on Industrial Communications

[Winni]

Originally Posted by upthesaukee

The blight of having a couple of cell towers is far less disruptive to the views around the lake than is clear cutting done so that the house(s) erected will stand out for all to see. ...
My humble opinion, we need the towers, and they can be constructed in a manner as to be minimally intrusive.

I'm not going to say much more on the cell tower issue either. You've all heard my arguments for them too many times. I just want to say that I agree with Upthesaukee and thank him for his synopsis. I just hope people come to their senses soon and get a grip on reality. I just don't see the problem with a little pine-tree-like tower poking above the trees. And, I do see the problem with the massive clear cutting and monster homes blighting the shores of our beautiful Lake.

Why don't people put safety before so-called luxury is my question? I just don't get it. Well, I guess I just don't get many people's ideas of why their personal wants come before the safety and needs of the greater whole.

[SIKSUKR]

Winni,although I don't necessarily support either side of this issue,maybe this will help you see someones elses pov.
You ask:"Why don't people put safety before so-called luxury is my question? I just don't get it. Well, I guess I just don't get many people's ideas of why their personal wants come before the safety and needs of the greater whole".
I think a lot of people think cell phones are more of a convienence than a safety item.I think one could argue both sides as has already been done in this thread.

[Skipper of the Sea Que]

Originally Posted by mcdude: msg #105

A little bit of background on Industrial Communications

mcdude linked to an interesting article from the October 19, 2006 e-edition of the Foxboro (MA) Reporter. The report changes weekly. They have no on-line archive and the link no longer yields that article. Without editorializing I'll present it as published. By the way, at the Oct 2006 hearing the proposal was approved. Presented here with the permission of the Foxboro Reporter:

The Foxboro Reporter Week of October 19, 2006

By Frank Mortimer
In 1983, the Foxboro Zoning Board of Appeals granted Francis J. DiRico a special use permit to build and operate a 350-foot communications tower on Dudley Hill off Hill Street.

In 1986, without a building permit, DiRico extended the tower to 450 feet plus a 20-foot antenna -- and later sued the town after the building inspector ordered him to reduce the structure to the allowed height. DiRico tonight (7:30 p.m., Oct. 19, at Town Hall) is scheduled to appear before the board again, with plans to replace the existing tower which stayed at 450 feet in a settlement of his court case a decade ago.

Concerned residents are mounting an information campaign focusing on DiRico's new plan and noting his record of legal compliance when building towers in Foxboro and other communities.

"Owner of towers skirts height laws," was the headline of a 1993 Boston Globe article that reported on DiRico's communication's tower building activities in Foxboro, Quincy and in other states.

A resident is circulating copies of that article along with a flyer urging residents to attend tonight's zoning board public hearing.

Residents are concerned about radiation emissions, emissions inspections, construction plans, recent modifications on a shorter tower on the site, and the height of the proposed structure.

"Is it time to re-address the lowering of the tower to 350 feet?" the flyer asks.
The 6.4-acre parcel is located within the R-40 residential district near homes in Dudley Hill Estates.

DiRico's company, Industrial Communications of Marshfield, seeks a special use permit to build a 450-foot replacement wireless communications tower on the existing parcel and, once the equipment transfer is completed, take down the old tower.

The "face size" of the tower -- the distance from leg to leg -- would increase from 52 inches to 60 inches to allow for installation of a safety ladder inside the tower.

According to DiRico's filing to the board, the existing tower is a lattice with three legs and six anchor points. The new tower would be a lattice with three legs and three anchors for support.

DiRico's filing states that the existing tower legally can and will continue to operate "if the requested approvals are denied."

But since the tower was built in 1983, the filing says, design standards for telecommunication equipment and towers have changed four times and DiRico has improved the tower over time by adding more achors [sic] and guy wires. Nonetheless, it says, the "existing tower cannot be improved to meet today's standards."

A divided zoning board in 1993 turned down DiRico's request to modify his earlier permit and allow the tower to remain at 450 feet. "This construction was done without a building permit and in violation of the Special Use Permit granted in 1983" that decision states.

DiRico sued then board members David J. Brown, Lynne S. Mitchell and Joyce M. McDonough. As part of the board's agreement to settle the case and leave the tower and antenna at 470 feet, DiRico agreed to donate $15,000 to the town tree fund. He agreed to "limit the radio frequency radiation emissions from the tower below 25 percent of those allowed at any time by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Radio Frequency Exposure Limits for members of the general public."

And he agreed to conduct an inspection of the radio frequency emissions from the tower at least yearly (and pay for up to one additional inspection per year if asked by the building commissioner) and report the results within 10 days to the building commissioner.

Four such annual studies -- performed in 1997, 1998, 2002 and 2006 -- were on file in the inspection department, according to the leaflet circulating among residents, which questioned whether the studies are being done each year as required in the settlement.

Attorney Frank Spillane, representing DiRico, on Monday said he did not know whether his client has complied with the annual inspection requirement but that he would have that information in time for tonight's hearing.

[mcdude]

Thanks Al.

[mcdude]

From the Baysider 11/09/06

Police: Can you hear us now?
Planning Board may need a bouncer
by Adam Drapcho
Staff Writer

write the author

November 09, 2006
ALTON — Even for an issue that has proven to be generally contentious, the cell tower meeting on Nov. 2 set a new standard for raucous discourse. Highlights of the short meeting included the town attorney shouting down the applicant's attorney, and the Planning Board chairman calling Alton police to remove the applicants from the meeting.

Things are really heating up on this cell tower issue. Was anyone from the forum at the meeting? Winni?

[upthesaukee]

Originally Posted by mcdude

From the Baysider 11/09/06

Things are really heating up on this cell tower issue. Was anyone from the forum at the meeting? Winni?

I wasn't there, but I understand that there was at first some discussion of why the topic was being brought up because at the last meeting it was to be passed to the ZBA. Once they got by that, I guess things got interesting.

The town wants more info on how more numerous but smaller towers would work, which would be more in line with the town's cell tower ordinance, with the study paid for by the town. In the meantime, it would be tabled.

The applicant's attorney was not happy with the topic being tabled for another month and seemed to blame the town attorney for them not being informed. Published reports indicate that there was a good amount of shouting, and when the chairman of the board tried to cut off the conversation, it continued and the police were then called to remove the applicants.

From the reports I read, and some scuttlebutt from a couple attendees, it certainly was not conversation between two or more adult and respectful representatives of both sides, and is unfortunately what is becoming a more common sight in the political arena at any level.

Hope I can make the November 30th meeting... Hopefully cooler heads will prevail and some real progress, rather than regression, can be made.

[ApS]

Rather than being discarded, your out-dated cellphone or video phone can be donated to a soldier.

http://www.cellphonesforsoldiers.com/

[rrr]

thanks APS! I have a bunch. I will drop them off before the week is out.

[mcdude]

From the Baysider...

ZBA grants one cell tower variance
by Adam Drapcho
Staff Writer

write the author

December 07, 2006
ALTON — It was incremental progress, but after about a year of meetings, it was progress nonetheless for the applicants who wish to build two 120-foot tall telecommunications towers in Alton.

At a Zoning Board of Adjustment meeting on Nov. 30, the ZBA granted a height variance for one of the proposed towers, for the proposed Roberts Knoll location in northern Alton. The board will meet on Monday, Dec. 11, to discuss the height variance needed for the second proposed site, on Miramichie Hill near Route 28A.

After receiving the height variances, the applicant – Industrial Communications – will have to go before the Planning Board to get the site plans approved. The possibility exists that the applicant could have to go back before the ZBA, should the Planning Board find further variances to be necessary.

Milestone passed

"I half-heartedly wanted to say 'Happy Anniversary,' since we've sat here for a year now," said Earl Duval, an attorney representing Industrial Communications.

According to the town's recently adopted telecommunications ordinance, cell phone towers may be constructed nearly anywhere in town, but they are restricted in height to being no more than 10 feet higher than the average tree canopy of the site.

Duval called the ordinance "fatally flawed," due to its height restrictions. At only 10 feet taller than the average canopy, Duval said the towers wouldn't be able to provide adequate service. "It does not work," he said.

ZBA members had fewer concerns about the Roberts Knoll location, mostly because of the result of a balloon test held in September, when Industrial Communications released colored balloons tethered to the height of the proposed towers. While the balloons at the Miramichie Hill location were easily visible from many places around Alton Bay, the Roberts Knoll balloons were only visible from a nearby gravel pit and the Roberts Knoll campground.

Sylvia Leggett, owner of Roberts Knoll Campground, who will be leasing the land for the proposed cell tower, spoke in favor of the height variance. Leggett said improved cell phone service in town would help the town's "tourist-friendly" image. "It would provide a great service for the residents and the tourists," she said.

Other residents, however, spoke in response to Duval calling the ordinance "fatally flawed." Resident Charles Weston commented that other towns in New Hampshire have similar ordinances limiting tower height. "Apparently the towers work in other towns, and don't have a problem with the '10-foot over' height." Resident David Slade made a similar comment.

Russ Wilson said all the evidence against a 10-foot over height is theoretical. "In real life it's going to work."

"It's not within the purvey of this board to decide whether or not this ordinance is fatally flawed," stated ZBA member Timothy Morgan. "It's the law of this town until someone other than us decides that it's fatally flawed."

The board ultimately decided to grant a height variance for the Roberts Knoll site, but only with the stipulation that the tower will be camouflaged to look like a tree, and that no lights are to be placed on the pole unless required so by a governmental agency.

The board began discussion about the height variance for the second proposed tower, but ran out of time before deliberations could begin.

Hobey Livingston, a local aviation enthusiast, said he can see hundreds of lights and vertical obtrusions dotting the landscape, including lots of telephone poles. "Yes, I can see the poles from my plane, should I be offended by this?" What's the remedy, he asked, ripping out the telephone infrastructure, and forcing residents to turn off their lights at night? He urged the board to grant a height variance, because the taller tower will be able to support several phone companies. "It will prevent the building of more towers, instead of having each carrier come in and build their own tower," he said.

Resident Alden Norman questioned whether the Miramichie Hill facility would indeed fill the "coverage gaps" that the applicants have described along Routes 28 and 11. Once these towers are permitted, Norman foresaw more companies looking to follow.

"This is just the start of several towers. More towers are on the horizon, you folks have to be cognizant of setting a precedent," Norman said.

Slade, whose property abuts the proposed Miramichie Hill site, offered extensive testimony arguing that the proposed facility would diminish his property value. Slade also said that the applicants hadn't explored alternative sites, as he felt the ordinance required them to do. Both of Slade's opinions were contested by the applicants.

The Dec. 11 ZBA meeting will begin at 6:30 p.m.

[mcdude]

Ron actually looks forward to viewing beautiful new cell phone tower from his picture window.....

Cell tower is a public safety issue

To the Editor:

It's frustrating to watch the goings-on regarding approval for a cell tower or two in Alton Bay. Between the Zoning Board, the Planning Board, and the Town Solicitor, nobody can even agree on whose court the ball is now in. No wonder people are screaming at each other at these meetings.

Obstacles to the tower range from the health risk of 'microwaves' (ridiculous) to the tower's impact on the 'viewshed.' Although I have yet to see a study that declares cell towers unsightly, or at the very least less beautiful than other antennas, the appearance of a cell tower from vantage points within the Alton Bay area is already decided to be detrimental. Yet I wonder? Will a single tourist not come to Alton because these cell towers are in-place?

I live on 28A in a 'no signal' area of town, directly across the street from the proposed site, and I am quite anxious for the new tower on Route 28A to be approved and built. In fact, I look forward to seeing this beautiful new tower from my picture window!

Furthermore, the Town's 'Personal Communications Ordinance' shouldn't even come into play here, this is a public communications issue. We're not talking about some private citizen's HAM Radio antenna. In fact, the lack of cell coverage in this area is a public safety issue, and therefore it is in the best interest for all that this application breeze through the approval process.

Ron Pearson

Alton Bay
Ron Pearson
Alton
December 06, 2006

from the Baysider.

[RLW]

It appears that everyone that has concerns is because of the view. Just think, if this is a problem they can get a rebate off of the view part of their taxes.

[idigtractors]

Originally Posted by mcdude

From the Baysider 11/09/06

Things are really heating up on this cell tower issue. Was anyone from the forum at the meeting? Winni?

I guess it didn't get that hot as I see that the subject stopped in Dec. 06. Did you get towers or not and was there more said from those that opposed it??

[This'nThat]

I was thinking the same thing -- my cell phone still doesn't work at my house and I want those towers put up as soon as possible. My cell works in my boat in the middle of Alton Bay, but not at home. This is rediculous.

[fatlazyless]

The Town of Ashland gets $1200/month rent for the cell tower near exit 24 in the Ashland waste water treatment facility which is on the Pemigewassett River. It certainly upset many of the Town of Bridgewater residents who have homes directly across the river and get to look right at the cell phone tower. About two years ago, the Ashland selectmen decided that the tower view being imposed on neighboring Bridgewater, across the narrow river, was not a reason to not let the tower be built. It's in a spot where no Ashland residents have much of a view.

"$1200 per month and no Ashland townies are forced to see it....what's not to like? All in favor, say aye. Now, that's good town planning!"

Probably, the tall white steam colored plume of smoke that rises upward from the nearby Bridgewater Power Plant was a strong arguing point. "Well Mel, if Bridgewater can locate their huge property tax paying power plant right up close to Plymouth and Ashland, then why don't Ashland locate their ugly new cell tower in that spot right by the river where it only can be seen from the Bridgewater side! Makes sense to me Mel, plus of course Ashland sure could use the rent money, now that the wool mill has closed up and sent all their wool machines to China, ayuh!

Up the road in Waterville Valley, the town just got through removing every single standard wood utility pole and street light fixture because the wood poles were unsightly and threw off too much light. All the street lights were making it tough to view the night skies and surrounding mountains at night. Instead of wood street lamps, there are now these colonial style, low light emmitting,, tall-but not as tall, charcoal grey colored outdoor street fixtures. Never seen anything like them anywhere else. For cutting down on night time light pollution, they are a very big improvement.

Every cable, telephone and power line in the 525 acre town of WV was relocated underground maybe 10 years ago, and now there's low light, designer street lights. How about that!

[upthesaukee]

Originally Posted by This'nThat

I was thinking the same thing -- my cell phone still doesn't work at my house and I want those towers put up as soon as possible. My cell works in my boat in the middle of Alton Bay, but not at home. This is rediculous.

approval was given for the tower at Robert's Cove campground off rte 28, but denied for the East Side Drive location (28A).

Sooooooo, coverage in the Bay area will be limited to line of sight coverage from the towers on Prospect Mt, until you get out by the mouth of Alton bay, where you can pick up coverage from Wolfeboro.

It seems that the voting majority would rather not have our scenic vistas spoiled with a cell phone tower, but have no problem with a McMansion clear cutting a hill side . Ya gotta love it.

[LIforrelaxin]

Originally Posted by This'nThat

I was thinking the same thing -- my cell phone still doesn't work at my house and I want those towers put up as soon as possible. My cell works in my boat in the middle of Alton Bay, but not at home. This is rediculous.

No it is not rediculous..... it is a sad sign of our times when people don't know how to deal with a minor inconvience.... People are too used to being in touch 24X7..... If people need to be in constinent contact then they should have a land line.....

My phone stays in my truck or boat glove box when I am at the lake....and if I check it once over a weekend that is too much..... If people can get a hold of me then it is not really a vacation.....

I like the convience as much as the next guy.... but I also don't think my phone has to work every where I go, and I personally would rather it not.....

Like many things in life we have taken something that was ment as a convience and turned it into a necessity..... life has become so expensive, because of the stupidity of the American public, allowing themselves to think that the modern conviences, can not be lived with out... ( and before anyone attacks me for saying this I count myself in that as well )

[hockeypuck]

..... If people can get a hold of me then it is not really a vacation.....

LIforrelaxin, you're 100% correct about the above, but the convenience of a cell phone has allowed many a businessperson to enjoy time at the lake,that they never would have been able to enjoy if they were tied to a land land. Cellphone + laptop + fax + printer = office. Now we have the convenience of a mobile office almost anywhere in the world and no one knows if you're sitting on your boat on Robert's bay, Jost Van Dyke in the British Virgin Islands or at your desk in Boston. It's a cheap way to run a business and increase productivity(profits) so we can afford those taxes. True the "Vacation" may not be the same as a no cell one, but you can have a whole lot more of them. Not to mention the enhanced safety factor.

[Argie's Wife]

As an Alton resident who lives in a cell signal void area, this is a really frustrating issue. I totally sympathize with the NIMBY's (Not In My Back Yard) people who don't want some butt-ugly tower in their view - I really do...

But...

We have a LEC (Local Exchange Carrier) here with limited options who isn't allowing Metrocast Cable phone in the area AND is rather expensive to have as a utility - it seems everything is a long distance call with them! I've had several locals comment that as soon as a tower goes up, they're planning on dumping Union Telephone for their cell carrier for cost savings.

Additionally, whenever we have a power outage there is a safety factor - and we were impacted by this a few weeks ago.

In early October there was a nasty thunderstorm that came through the area. It included high winds and we had a microburst tornado touch down in our back yard - we had seven trees fall on our house in this less than fun event - causing over $10K in damage (home & property & tree removal costs). I had NO WAY to get in touch with anyone until power was restored. I was home with a 2 year old and a little freaked out by the whole thing. I'm thankful it wasn't any worse than it was but the "what ifs" run through my mind, especially where I have two young children.

Although I may take some heat for this, there's a "greater good" that should be considered in this issue. I haven't been following this closely enough to know what designs have been explored, etc. or what other locations might have been considered but I am for having a tower here Alton.

[idigtractors]

Originally Posted by Argie's Wife

As an Alton resident who lives in a cell signal void area, this is a really frustrating issue. I totally sympathize with the NIMBY's (Not In My Back Yard) people who don't want some butt-ugly tower in their view - I really do...

But...

We have a LEC (Local Exchange Carrier) here with limited options who isn't allowing Metrocast Cable phone in the area AND is rather expensive to have as a utility - it seems everything is a long distance call with them! I've had several locals comment that as soon as a tower goes up, they're planning on dumping Union Telephone for their cell carrier for cost savings.

Additionally, whenever we have a power outage there is a safety factor - and we were impacted by this a few weeks ago.

In early October there was a nasty thunderstorm that came through the area. It included high winds and we had a microburst tornado touch down in our back yard - we had seven trees fall on our house in this less than fun event - causing over $10K in damage (home & property & tree removal costs). I had NO WAY to get in touch with anyone until power was restored. I was home with a 2 year old and a little freaked out by the whole thing. I'm thankful it wasn't any worse than it was but the "what ifs" run through my mind, especially where I have two young children.

Although I may take some heat for this, there's a "greater good" that should be considered in this issue. I haven't been following this closely enough to know what designs have been explored, etc. or what other locations might have been considered but I am for having a tower here Alton.

Thank you for speaking up. You mentioned several things that I hadn't even thought of and I guess one of them is We have a LEC (Local Exchange Carrier) here with limited options who isn't allowing Metrocast Cable phone in the area AND is rather expensive to have as a utility - it seems everything is a long distance call with them! I've had several locals comment that as soon as a tower goes up, they're planning on dumping Union Telephone for their cell carrier for cost savings. That is a big problem in the Alton area.

[mcdude]

Originally Posted by This'nThat

-- my cell phone still doesn't work at my house and I want those towers put up as soon as possible.

Perhaps you could volunteer your backyard as a location? It would insure excellent reception for you.

[Weirs guy]

Originally Posted by LIforrelaxin

No it is not rediculous..... it is a sad sign of our times when people don't know how to deal with a minor inconvience.... People are too used to being in touch 24X7..... If people need to be in constinent contact then they should have a land line.....

I understand your reaction, but since my wife drives, sometimes with our babies, through the Alton dead spots daily I would beg to differ that this is a "convenience". Is your argument more based towards the ability to disconnect from the world, or the towers ruining the view? Its too bad that even the tree looking ones look nothing like a tree.

Did we have cell phones a few years ago in case of emergencies, no. But where does it stop? Do we remove all the airbags, seat belts, stop lights...

[GWC...]

Originally Posted by mcdude

Perhaps you could volunteer your backyard as a location? It would insure excellent reception for you.

This should also yield a monthly check of around $1200,
if it proved to be an acceptable location for a tower.

[LIforrelaxin]

Originally Posted by Weirs guy

I understand your reaction, but since my wife drives, sometimes with our babies, through the Alton dead spots daily I would beg to differ that this is a "convenience". Is your argument more based towards the ability to disconnect from the world, or the towers ruining the view? Its too bad that even the tree looking ones look nothing like a tree.

Did we have cell phones a few years ago in case of emergencies, no. But where does it stop? Do we remove all the airbags, seat belts, stop lights...

My arguement is more based in people inability to disconect from the world.
I have no issues with the cell towers persay... do they stand out, yep... and that is the price people pay for convience. Would I stop a tower from going in, no... if it is what a majority of people want....

What I don't like is people stomping there feet and crying because the world isn't just the way they want it. Dead spots are something people just need to except. Would I feel bad if your wife and kids where stranded in the dead zone... sure especially if it was at night.... but then again that is why I stop for people if I think they are in danger.... A courtesy that many have forgotten how to extend. As technology has advanced we have a become a less interactive and friendly society.

If people think a dead zone in Alton is bad what do they think of entire regions of Northern Vt and NH that are dead...... When I traveled from Burlington to Winnipesaukee there where many miles where my cell phone did not get a signal. One of my routes had me out of touch for over an hour.... It was a nice drive on a fairly busy road.... and no one was screaming about the injustice of it... it was just a dead zone.... If you saw someone in trouble you stopped to make sure they where ok....

[Weirs guy]

Originally Posted by LIforrelaxin

What I don't like is people stomping there feet and crying because the world isn't just the way they want it.

Isn't that kinda the point behind progress though? To improve society by making things the way the majority wants to make life easier/safer/more fun? I'm not advocating a Wal-Mart in every town on every corner, but this is a mater of both safety and convenience, especially for those of us who live here year round.

However I do agree with you, "as technology has advanced we have a become a less interactive and friendly society."

[This'nThat]

Originally Posted by mcdude

Perhaps you could volunteer your backyard as a location? It would insure excellent reception for you.

Wouldn't bother me a bit. There are a whole lot of ugly, noisy things along the lake -- a cell tower is one of the least objectionable. Let's get the towers up!

[ApS]

Originally Posted by LIforrelaxin

"...Would I stop a tower from going in, no... if it is what a majority of people want...."

A tower on top of Rattlesnake Island would allow reception around the whole lake.

[hockeypuck]

Put me down for a cell tower in my yard. A friend in Connecticut along I-91 bought a small (110 ft by 100 ft) piece of property with a small building on it for $65,000 a few years ago. Now he rents the building out for $1,000 a month and a cell tower was built, with 5 different cell servers attached, brings in a nice $70,000 per year! Every time a server adds another antenna the monthly charge goes up by about $1200. WOW! Ideal location, highway on one side, railroad tracks on other, no close neighbors. At first there was an annoying hum from the power shed, but this has been eliminated. Yes they are not natural, looking, but neither is a power boat, jet ski or ski lift.

[idigtractors]

Boy did I open a can of worms. This subject has been sitting on the shelve for almost a year and now look how it has sprung alive again.

[GWC...]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

A tower on top of Rattlesnake Island would allow reception around the whole lake.

This would require some minor degree of revenue comprehension
on the part on the membership
and that is something that seems to elude them.

[Argie's Wife]

FYI - this is still tied up in court....

[idigtractors]

Originally Posted by Argie's Wife

FYI - this is still tied up in court....

May I ask, what part of it or the whole thing. Is it in court because of the town or the people that want to install it/them???

[ApS]

Originally Posted by GWC...

This would require some minor degree of revenue comprehension on the part on the membership and that is something that seems to elude them.

I was only semi-serious.

However, the lease could "sunset" after a few years, the Trust could use the money, and it could bridge a technology gap with fewer towers.

In the meantime, I don't see any mention here of "In-Home Towers". My cellphone didn't work even after a new tower went in just two miles away.


http://krakow.msnbc.msn.com/archive/...10/264629.aspx

[dpg]

I agree with Winni, everyone wants the coverage, nobody wants the towers. Everybody wants alternative power sources but nobody wants to look at wind turbines. Everyone would love gas to drop to 1.50/gal but everybody will not stop buying the V8's. We control our own destiny folks we just don't know it. Well we may know it but we don't do anything about it.

[LIforrelaxin]

Originally Posted by dpg

I agree with Winni, everyone wants the coverage, nobody wants the towers. Everybody wants alternative power sources but nobody wants to look at wind turbines. Everyone would love gas to drop to 1.50/gal but everybody will not stop buying the V8's. We control our own destiny folks we just don't know it. Well we may know it but we don't do anything about it.

Dpg you are right people want to complain, but very few want to act when they find it negatively impacts there life.....

Now on to other business, lets not condem all V8s.... I for one get better mileage then some V6s with my V8.......

[Argie's Wife]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

I was only semi-serious.

However, the lease could "sunset" after a few years, the Trust could use the money, and it could bridge a technology gap with fewer towers.

In the meantime, I don't see any mention here of "In-Home Towers". My cellphone didn't work even after a new tower went in just two miles away.


http://krakow.msnbc.msn.com/archive/...10/264629.aspx

That's a nice idea but T-Mobile doesn't cover Alton at all - not one iota. Maybe some other companies will get on board with that idea...


And to the poster who asked for more details about the cell tower court case - let me find out some more facts before I post on that aspect of it. (I don't want to misinform anyone and haven't paid close enough attention to who is taking who to court, etc.)

[LIforrelaxin]

Originally Posted by Argie's Wife

That's a nice idea but T-Mobile doesn't cover Alton at all - not one iota. Maybe some other companies will get on board with that idea...

I am not completely sure here but I don't think it matters that T-mobile doesn't cover Alton, because everything goes back through your high speed connection according to the article. So for those that have T mobile, it wouldn't be a bad idea if they have poor or no signal at home/camp... However if you hardly ever leave Alton, then it would be no more then a fancy home phone.....

On the other side of this if other companies get on board with this it would be a great thing......I have to agree with you there....

[Rattlesnake Guy]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

I was only semi-serious.

However, the lease could "sunset" after a few years, the Trust could use the money,

APS,
Do you know how many acres (no pun intended) the Trust owns?

[Weirs guy]

Originally Posted by LIforrelaxin

I am not completely sure here but I don't think it matters that T-mobile doesn't cover Alton, because everything goes back through your high speed connection according to the article. So for those that have T mobile, it wouldn't be a bad idea if they have poor or no signal at home/camp... However if you hardly ever leave Alton, then it would be no more then a fancy home phone.....

On the other side of this if other companies get on board with this it would be a great thing......I have to agree with you there....

Color me too lazy to look this up myself, but I've never seen this before. T-Mobile's service lets you bost your signal with a wireless router?

[LIforrelaxin]

Originally Posted by Weirs guy

Color me too lazy to look this up myself, but I've never seen this before. T-Mobile's service lets you bost your signal with a wireless router?

Look up in the thread to APS last post there is a link to the article....The service doesn't bost your signal persay.... but give you kind of your own personal tower in your home.... It does mention that it only works with certain phones....

[mcdude]

Unicel's new tower is now operational along Rt. 28 in Alton.

See CITIZEN ARTICLE

[Audiofn]

You can buy something like this and have it profesionally installed.

http://www.wi-ex.com/Page3429.aspx

If you have patchy coverate lots of my customers have been happy with their more DIY units.

[RLW]

Originally Posted by mcdude

Unicel's new tower is now operational along Rt. 28 in Alton.

That's super, but how many in the area use Unicel's???? I have never heard of it or is another name for a well known comPany??.

[mcdude]

one sentence, towards the end, more or less sums up my feelings on this matter

"Over the last four years, the gap in coverage has become less and less significant," said Slade, adding that the real tragedy would be to spoil the sight for nearly antiquated technology.

...and once it goes up it won't be coming down anytime soon!

From the Laconia Citizen Oct. 1, 2009

Standoff over cell tower plan continues
Alton:


Thursday, October 1, 2009

It was 1953 when David Slade's grandparents bought the old farmhouse or "manor" on Miramichie Hill.

For Slade, his five siblings, his wife and his two children, Miramichie Hill is 55 years of memories and where he and his wife Marilyn hope to retire.

"I remember Rev. [Peter] Bolster conducting my grandfather's funeral from the front porch and telling me how James McDuffy chose the sight on the direct orders of the king of England as the first place in the area to settle," Slade said of his 1783 home.

Many years later, Slade now finds himself in a battle against the power and might of a cell tower developer and two wireless providers.

While Slade isn't the first and won't be the last New Hampshire abutter to play the not-in-my-back-yard role in a cell tower dispute, he said his case is different because the town's land boards said "No" to the developer, but, for a reason about which he can only speculate, the town of Alton appears willing to ignore the land boards and negotiate a compromise.

And they don't want to talk about it.

"All I can say is there is no settlement," said Town Administrator Russ Bailey, who said because the issue is a pending lawsuit he cannot comment further, nor could anyone in the planning office.

According to the mountain of paperwork filed in U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire, the cell tower proposal first came about in early 2004 when RCC Atlantic Inc., a Minnesota cellular provider, began its search for a site to close what it said were significant gaps in the cell phone coverage around Route 28.

At the time, Alton zoning ordinances allowed for cell towers in four overlay districts — none of which RCC (D.B.A. Unicel) and Industrial Communications & Electronics — a "vertical site" developer — said were locations that would close the gaps.

RCC and ICE filed for a zoning variance in September 2005 after identifying two spots in Alton — one on Wolfeboro Highway and one on 486 East Side Drive or Miramichie Hill — as the two sites that would be "ideal." Both required variances from the zoning board.
Also in late 2005, the town was under an "interim growth management ordinance" or moratorium on new development, so the town planner could re-evaluate the long-term growth needs of Alton and propose relative zoning ordinances. The public hearings continued, although no decisions could be made.

On March 14, 2006, Alton voters overwhelmingly approved a zoning change that would allow cell towers in the entire town, with a few exceptions, but would restrict their height to 10 feet above the average height of the tree canopy to avoid what is called "the lollipop effect."

The problem, independent engineer Mark Hutchins determined, is that the Miramichie Hill tower needed to be 120 feet tall to work — double the 61-foot average tree canopy determined by forester Peter Farrell.

In May, the planning board and the ZBA joined together and, in November 2006, ordered a second evaluation of the Miramichie Hill site. After the second "Hutchins report" the boards issued a joint finding sending the request back to the ZBA for a variance and tabling the planning board site plan review until when, and if, the ZBA agreed to the variance.

On Dec. 11, 2006, after two members of the planning board — Jeanne Crouse, an abutter who recused herself from all the proceedings, and Thomas Hoopes — testified against it, the ZBA denied the variance, saying the proposed tower met none of the requirements.

In January 2007, RCC and ICE requested a rehearing which was denied on Feb. 12. According to the pleadings, ICE and RCC gave the town until Feb. 23 to file a written response but said the response was dated March 13, 2007.

On March 21, 2007, ICE and RCC — now joined by USCOC of New Hampshire Inc. (D.B.A. U.S. Cellular) — filed suit against the town alleging, among other things, that Alton zoning regulations are hostile to all cell tower development because, at a minimum and according to an independent engineer, a cell tower must be 15 to 20 feet above the average tree line to be effective.

During oral arguments for a motion for summary judgment or a statement of facts, the court denied ICE, RCC and USCOC's argument that they met their burden for the tower and must be given the variance, but made no ruling on their claim that the town's zoning ordinances were "hostile" to all cell tower development.

The Slades petitioned the court on June 15 to be included as intervenor. The court allowed them to intervene with the agreement of the town and over the objections of ICE, RCC and USCOC.

The next time Slade heard from either side was when he learned from a joint status report filed on Aug. 14 that the two sides were in settlement negotiations, with the town saying it will agree to a 100-foot tower if the cell companies agree to never ask for a taller tower.

"I don't think they can settle this without me," Slade said Monday when questioned if the board of selectmen — all lawsuits are under the jurisdiction of the selectmen, Bailey said — are negotiating because of the expense the town will incur in fighting what he calls a David-versus-Goliath battle.

When asked if a settlement is on the table because of the potential costs of litigation, Bailey said he could not answer that question.

"[If this is the case] I am willing to make an extraordinary contribution to the town to defer these expenses," Slade said.

Slade's other theory is that some selectmen believe Alton "needs to come into the 21st century" despite ruining his view as well as that of the "entire bay area."

To that argument, he said, there are other, less invasive, ways to cover most of the gaps.

"I think they're acting like emperors, not selectmen," said Russ Wilson, who lives in Alton Bay and said Miramichie Hill is what he sees from his living room window. "I also think this is an end run around the planning process."
Wilson testified at length against the tower but thinks the selectmen cannot enter into any agreement because any change to the proposed zoning variance should go back through the planning and zoning process.

Both said this is the big-hammer technique typically used by wireless developers to get what they want.

"I guess I really am David," Slade said.

Both men also said that both the town and the cell companies are missing the big picture because of the advances in wireless technology in the time since the process began.

"Over the last four years, the gap in coverage has become less and less significant," said Slade, adding that the real tragedy would be to spoil the sight for nearly antiquated technology.

Slade said he would soldier on, regardless of what agreements or settlements the town and ICE RCC and USCOC reach.

"Don't forget, I am a party in this suit," Slade said.

[Argie's Wife]

Interesting, the timing of this article, as the Alton Selectman who is mentioned in your above article was removed from his position as the vice chair in last night's meeting. One of the reasons given in the article for the "demotion", if you will, is comments he supposedly made as a representative of the selectmen - including comments about the cell tower issue.

You can read the article about the meeting HERE in The Citizen.

Last I knew, this was still all tied up and not going anywhere fast.

No surprise, really.

On the other hand, I've heard that schools and municipal properties are renting out the tops of their buildings, flag poles, utility poles, etc. as "mini towers". From what I hear it brings in revenue and meets coverage needs - plus there's no butt-ugly tower in view. I wonder if this has ever been considered?

I realize Alton is a very large town - the most paved road of any NH town - but perhaps this would help in the village because there is little/no service here. (Try making a cell phone call by the Alton Fire Department area sometime - grrrr!)

[Airwaves]

Please explain to me why a cell tower, providing cell phone service, is bad?

[Slickcraft]

The Alton zoning ordinance allows cell towers in all zones of the town in an effort to allow a mature build out of wireless services. Zoning also allows antennas (service facilities) on existing structures, buildings, utility towers, etc. The current applicant did consider but rejected locations such as the Town Hall bell tower.

Alton zoning does restrict antenna height to 10’ above tree line and is almost an exact copy of the zoning in several southern NH towns. The current applicant proposed two very tall towers each allowing several carrier’s antennas as well as “back haul” microwave antennas. They applied to the ZBA for dimensional variances to allow the two tall towers. One in a more remote hard to see area was approved. The 2nd would be near the lake in full view and that variance was not approved by the ZBA. The applicant appealed in Federal court.

The applicant never investigated the possibility of a meeting service with an additional lower tower as the tall tower “vertical real estate” concept is more lucrative.

In my opinion the applicant is simply pouring money into this hoping that in time the Town will fold.

[jrc]

Judging by the windmill thread, all the applicant has to do is put a couple of big blades on the cell tower.

[Grady223]

are a great place to put cell towers. Usually, the cell company buys a fiberglass steeple to repace the existing steeple and the equipment goes inside. Another place often used down by us (Bucls County, PA) is an unused farm silo. Cell company puts their tower inside and maintains the silo - not a bad deal for the farmer. Then again, you could hide them in the new windmill farm going up on Rattlesnake!

[Sandy Beach]

I did not realize that Alton cell tower installations and locations were still an issue.
I get pretty good coverage on my Verizon in Alton Bay and the areas of Alton where I drive.

The cellular companies have the resources to outlast opposition and eventually get their way. They get their funding from the money we pay for cell service to hire lawyers to fight against any opposition.

"Can you hear me now?" (means you couldn't hear me before )

[mcdude]

From the Baysider 10/08/09

October 06, 2009
ALTON — As far as East Side Drive resident David Slade knew, Alton's Board of Selectmen seemed to be holding all the cards in the Miramichie Hill cell tower case until this spring.

Everything seemed to be going so well, in fact, that when Slade and his fellow abutters heard the news over the summer that the selectmen had switched gears and chosen to pursue a settlement with the plaintiffs, they were dumbfounded.

"I'm just scratching my head, wondering why the board of selectmen are doing a 180," Slade (who has been granted intervener status in the lawsuit, along with his wife) said during a telephone interview late last month.

The origins of the lawsuit date back to 2004, when RCC Atlantic, Inc., a Minnesota-based cellular phone service provider associated with Unicel, began searching for a suitable site for a tower that could close what were described at the time as significant gaps in coverage along Route 28.

In September of 2005, after identifying the Miramichie Hill site on East Side Drive and another site on the Wolfeboro Highway as the two best options, RCC and its site developer, Industrial Communications & Electronics, Inc. (ICE), applied for a variance from the zoning board that would allow them to construct towers on the two properties (which were not located in one of the four overlay districts zoned for cell towers at that time).

With the town under an interim growth management ordinance at that time that placed a moratorium on new construction, the zoning board was prohibited from making any decisions on the proposal.

During the town elections in March of 2006, held in the midst of the ongoing public hearings, voters approved a change in the zoning ordinance allowing towers to be constructed throughout the entire town, but restricting their height to no more than 10 feet above the average tree line.

After granting a variance for the Wolfeboro Highway site, the zoning board, together with the planning board, ordered a second evaluation of the Miramichie Hill site by engineer Mark Hutchins in November of 2006.

Upon reviewing Hutchins' report, the two boards jointly decided to table further planning board hearings and remand the issue back to the zoning board.

With opposition to the proposal widespread among abutters and other concerned residents (including two members of the planning board), the zoning board voted in December of 2006 to deny the variance for the Miramichie Hill site.

After their request for a re-hearing was denied in March of 2007, RCC and ICE filed suit against the town in U.S. District Court on grounds that Alton's zoning regulations were hostile to cell towers.

According to the findings of a third-party engineer hired by RCC and ICE, cell towers must have a minimum of 15 to 20 feet of clearance above the tree line in order to provide effective service — nearly double the 10-foot limit imposed by the town's zoning ordinance.

After hearing oral arguments from both sides, the court found that the plaintiffs had not provided sufficient proof that they should be granted the variance.

The court made no ruling, however, on the plaintiffs' claim that the town's zoning ordinance was hostile to cellular service providers.

Over the plaintiffs' objections, the court granted the Slades' petition to be included in the case as interveners in June of 2007.

According to Slade, the next time he or his wife, Marilyn, heard anything about the case was in August of this year, when they received notice that attorneys for both the town and the plaintiffs had filed a joint status report stating that negotiations for a possible settlement were under way.

"An agreement in principle has been reached between the Applicants [or plaintiffs] and the Town with respect to certain issues, but the parties are unable to agree to all terms necessary to complete a settlement," the status report, filed on Aug. 14, reads.

According to the report, the major sticking point has been the fact that the town has asked RCC and ICE to limit the height of the tower to 100 feet.

The plaintiffs, however, have continued to argue that the tower would need to be at least 120 feet high in order to provide effective service.

"The Town wants the Applicant to agree that it will not seek to locate a wireless facility on the property greater than 100 feet in height, and seeks to enforce this by a restrictive covenant or other encumbrance to be placed upon the subject real property itself to provide finality and to avoid future litigation," the report states.

Town Administrator Russell Bailey and Selectman Pat Fuller confirmed last week that settlement negotiations are under way, but both said they could not comment on the case until a final agreement has been reached.

Explaining that his historic 18th Century home on East Side Drive has been in his family since the early 1950s, and that the proposed tower would be within 100 feet of the stone wall at the edge of his property, Slade said his chief concern about the possible settlement is the fact that the selectmen appeared, to him, to be overriding the authority of the zoning and planning boards.

Concerned that the zoning and planning boards might not have been notified about the settlement negotiations, Slade recently sent a letter to the planning office encouraging members of both boards to make their opinions known if they disagree with the selectmen's actions.

"Equally as troubling as the proposal [for a 100-foot tower] itself is the fact that the Selectmen are also apparently considering asking the Court to order that a permit be granted without returning this matter to either the Zoning Board or the Planning Board for further consideration or input," Slade wrote in the letter.

"These two Boards," he added, "are charged with the enforcement of local land use ordinances and regulations and also provide protection for the Town, its residents, land owners and visitors against improper or detrimental land uses. In my opinion, that would include the construction of the cell tower, and I assume that the Planning Board and Zoning Board members would agree, as demonstrated by their unanimous decision in opposing this matter."

"It's puzzling to me why all this is happening, given the circumstances," Slade said during the recent telephone interview, adding that the question on his mind is why the selectmen felt pressured into reversing their position on the case.

Given the fact that the zoning board granted RCC and ICE a variance for construction of the Wolfeboro Highway tower, he felt the plaintiffs would be hard pressed to demonstrate open hostility toward cell towers on the town's part.

Financial resources should also not be a concern for the selectmen, he said, since he has offered on several occasions to contribute money out of his own pocket toward the town's defense.

Voicing his belief that by settling with the plaintiffs, the town would simply be giving RCC and ICE what they want, Slade said the decision to pursue a settlement he did not feel was necessary had left him feeling "quite uneasy."

"I'm just very nervous, and feeling quite insecure," he said, adding that he was pinning his hopes on the dispute over the height of the tower as one final opportunity for the selectmen to "put things on the right track."

Brendan Berube

[laketrout]

I am not happy to have the tall cell towers although they can be made to look like trees. There are cell towers in most of the region and the rest of the lake. Alton is the only area that has poor reception or none at all. As for "gabbing" call it progress. They said the same when "talkie movies" came out in 1929. I usually have my phone off, that said I would like to use it when in Alton. Better if my phone acutally works with a signal.

[mcdude]

Originally Posted by Airwaves

Please explain to me why a cell tower, providing cell phone service, is bad?

I'll take a stab at this even though I know that any debate will never be won or lost on this forum and I generally avoid contentious topics. It's sad but in the tone of some recent speed limit or restaurant threads I expect to get totally attacked for expressing my minority opinion.

I think most of us have spent a fortune on summer places or to move to the lake to get away from the the hectic city/urban life. We want to enjoy the peace and quiet of the lake and get back to the simple things and enjoy the beautiful views no? Instead you get up to the lake and you are surrounded by the people/things you are trying to get away from such as fast/noisy boats, power tools and machinery at all hours of the day and night, traffic, etc, etc. I call it the increasing urbanization of the lake. Do you really want to destroy the ridgeline of Alton Bay forever with an ugly cell phone tower? Once it gets put up ...it ain't coming down anytime soon.

Now let me go back and quote from post #1

The new Personal Wireless Service Facilities Ordinance enacted by Alton's residents clearly prohibits the type of facility proposed by ICE. Instead, it encourages more targeted low powered and new systems such as Micro Cells and Repeaters. One solution could be the use of a camouflaged repeater placed below the ridgeline on Rattlesnake Island. This repeater could take a signal from the cell tower on Old Wolfeboro Road, amplify it and rebroadcast it. Conceivably, it would cover most of Alton's Islands and Lake area, the gaps around Clay Point, Black Point and Robert's Cover and even the gaps in West Alton the applicant's plans will not cover.

If we wait a few years there will be the technology to avoid tall cell phone towers all together. We managed all these years without cell phones. Why are we in such a hurry to be plugged in 24/7 at every conceivable location? Use your land line for a few more years until the micro cells and repeaters are commercially available/feasible! Why are people in such a hurry to make Alton Bay look like Mass or New Jersey? I just don't get it.

BRING IT ON FOLKS!!

[LakeSnake]

+1

Thanks

[nj2nh]

Originally Posted by mcdude

Why are people in such a hurry to make Alton Bay look like Mass or New Jersey? I just don't get it.

I just have to say this.

Why does everyone always pick on Massachusetts and New Jersey? We don't like the cell towers down here in Jersey either. Do you really think we like the visual blight on our landscape? The ones that pretend to be trees look like nothing more that giant mascara wands. Yuck.

We aren't the Garden State for nothing, though. There are miles of gorgeous rolling hills, dozens of secluded campgrounds, plenty of beautiful state parks and, yes, farms. Hundreds of them. And miles and miles without a single cell phone tower. There are deer in our backyards. There are bears in our garbage and I live in suburbia.

By the way, I live 20 minutes from New York City and can't get a signal in my own house despite the apparent glut of cell towers that you all seem to believe we have. Well, we don't. They put them along ugly highways or at the local recycling center. Not in the woods. Not in the backyards. And not where it blocks the view.

As for Massachusetts, where I spent 26 years before moving to Jersey, well, DITTO.

If you haven't been here in Jersey in a place other than driving on the turnpike or in Elizabeth or Newark, then you don't know a thing about us or our state. This is the last place where I ever wanted to live. I know better now. It isn't the lake by a long stretch and never will be, but it isn't too bad at all. It isn't where I plan on living out my senior years either. But, please, enough already.

nj2nh

P.S. One way or another, there will be probably be a cell tower in Alton if the company wants it enough. Federal law prohibits a town from saying no in the end which is why my town eventually gave in. Neither visual, home value nor the imagined health concerns are valid excuses. You can complain and argue all you want, but it is inevitable if the company is willing to push it.

[Argie's Wife]

Alton is a big town... 82.2 square miles (63.1 square miles is land) and there's many places that a tower could be placed. Towers can be camouflaged, made to look like parts of buildings, silos, etc.

Forgive me for making this simpleton suggestion, but is the proposed location the ONLY choice in this town? Seems they (the cell company) can alter their plan a bit to make more of a win-win situation... I'd love to have my cell work better or be able to consider a different service provider - Verizon is sorta pricy!

Maybe it's me, but I think power lines and TV ariel antennas are way fuglier than cell phone towers... really... Wonder if the previous generations took issue with those going up...

[SIKSUKR]

Originally Posted by mcdude

I'll take a stab at this even though I know that any debate will never be won or lost on this forum and I generally avoid contentious topics. It's sad but in the tone of some recent speed limit or restaurant threads I expect to get totally attacked for expressing my minority opinion.

First of all McDude, almost more than any member, you have earned the right to voice any opinion you have loud and clear. The outstanding contribution you have brought to this site with your incredible collection of lake memorbelia is very much appreciated and in my mind, makes you a great spokesman on this subject. Whether I agree with your opinion or not does not matter. I myself have also backed away from the afore mentioned threads.

[jmen24]

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

First of all McDude, almost more than any member, you have earned the right to voice any opinion you have loud and clear. The outstanding contribution you have brought to this site with your incredible collection of lake memorbelia is very much appreciated and in my mind, makes you a great spokesman on this subject. Whether I agree with your opinion or not does not matter. I myself have also backed away from the afore mentioned threads.

I second this post.

[Rattlesnake Gal]

Church Steeples

Originally Posted by Grady223

are a great place to put cell towers. Usually, the cell company buys a fiberglass steeple to replace the existing steeple and the equipment goes inside. Another place often used down by us (Bucls County, PA) is an unused farm silo. Cell company puts their tower inside and maintains the silo - not a bad deal for the farmer. Then again, you could hide them in the new windmill farm going up on Rattlesnake!

A cell tower being hidden in a church steeple or a silo sounds great!

I'd rather not have a farm of windmills on Rattlesnake Island thank you! I would be willing to consider a cell phone tower that might also serve as a lookout tower. It would have to benefit to the association in some way. I would prefer that it be made to look something like Abenaki Tower, blending in and looking as if it had been there for a long time.


Abenaki Tower

Much of the lake view from Rattlesnake Island is obstructed by trees and I'm not crazy enough to risk life and limb for a better shot.

[Gearhead]

I've got a good idea, let me know what you think.

I've got this towering white pine in my back yard; tall and ugly. What if I call ICE up and tell them to replace the big dumb-looking tree with an exact replica cell tower. Just put all the fake branches on one side, and just put a couple of broken-off ones on the other sides. It's got to be over 100 feet tall, and it's in the same area as the disputed location. It won't even change the landscape, and they'll pay ME $1,600 or so a month to look at it.

[Rattlesnake Gal]

Originally Posted by Gearhead

I've got a good idea, let me know what you think.

I've got this towering white pine in my back yard; tall and ugly. What if I call ICE up and tell them to replace the big dumb-looking tree with an exact replica cell tower. Just put all the fake branches on one side, and just put a couple of broken-off ones on the other sides. It's got to be over 100 feet tall, and it's in the same area as the disputed location. It won't even change the landscape, and they'll pay ME $1,600 or so a month to look at it.

Let us know how you make out!

It seems very silly that with all the technology we have, the fake tree cell towers look so stupid. Why is that?

[Argie's Wife]

Originally Posted by mcdude

I'll take a stab at this even though I know that any debate will never be won or lost on this forum and I generally avoid contentious topics. It's sad but in the tone of some recent speed limit or restaurant threads I expect to get totally attacked for expressing my minority opinion.

I think most of us have spent a fortune on summer places or to move to the lake to get away from the the hectic city/urban life. We want to enjoy the peace and quiet of the lake and get back to the simple things and enjoy the beautiful views no? Instead you get up to the lake and you are surrounded by the people/things you are trying to get away from such as fast/noisy boats, power tools and machinery at all hours of the day and night, traffic, etc, etc. I call it the increasing urbanization of the lake. Do you really want to destroy the ridgeline of Alton Bay forever with an ugly cell phone tower? Once it gets put up ...it ain't coming down anytime soon.

Now let me go back and quote from post #1


If we wait a few years there will be the technology to avoid tall cell phone towers all together. We managed all these years without cell phones. Why are we in such a hurry to be plugged in 24/7 at every conceivable location? Use your land line for a few more years until the micro cells and repeaters are commercially available/feasible! Why are people in such a hurry to make Alton Bay look like Mass or New Jersey? I just don't get it.

BRING IT ON FOLKS!!

No attack here but a respectful disagreement of sorts.

Please keep in mind that I'm writing from a local's point-of-view.

I hate it that my sister and I both have Verizon and although she lives just 7 minutes from me, I can't call her on her cell phone because they just don't connect unless we're well out of Alton-proper. Even a landline to cell is bad. Of course, landline to landline is fine.

I plan the times I can makes calls when I'm on the road by where I am in relation to all the dead-zones. My cell is used #1 for work and I am mainly self-employed these days. Communication is key to my business, as you can imagine is true with any business. I am often on the roads - whether for work, school, the kids', or whatever. My cell has to work.

For the reasons I cited earlier in this thread - cost, lack of options, etc., - I would love to drop Union Telephone from my list of monthly bills and just have my cell but really can't right now because of these dead-zone issues. I use my cell especially for my long-distance calls and those same calls would cost me more if I were to use my landline. (And before anyone suggests a VOIP option, I do use Skype when I can but it's still not free.)

I think that with today's technology and some creative engineering, perhaps there's a way to well-disguise the thing so that it's more palatable for all. We do need better service in this area and better options would be welcome. I don't want to see a tower anymore than anyone else does but there's got to be some happy-medium we can find with this issue.

At the writing of this post, the local high school is considering wind turbines and are doing a study on them. I have to wonder if those turbines could be utilized as mini-towers to help with the problem. Several mini-towers in town, well disguised, could make a great difference and bring in revenue.

By the way - as far as the technology going away anytime soon - don't bet on it. We are very far behind the times in comparison with the way most European countries are using their cell phones and have a lot of catching up to do. You are correct that once a tower goes up it's not coming down anytime soon.

In short, we don't have the infrastructure now that supports 10+ year old technology, such as G3 networks, never mind anything more advanced than that. Besides, Americans do not give in to the new technology as quickly as other countries - hence us just now going to digital televisions (and little implementation of fiber optic networks.)

[nj2nh]

I commented on this twice before, but will try one more time.

Here in Jersey (yeah, I know, yuck), people in my town fought tooth and nail to keep out the cell tower for a whole slew of reasons. In the end, we got the tower.

Under federal law, as I understand it, there is no standing to object to a cell tower. Health concerns are rejected. Home value concerns are rejected. Asthetics are rejected. If the company wants the tower, they will get it. Where it goes is a different story, but there will be a tower in Alton one way or another in one place or another.

As for whether Alton needs one, heck, yes. Last week, we lost our power here at my house in Jersey (yeah, I know, yuck). I have a wall mounted phone that I kept for just such situations. However, instead of electric back-up through the phone lines, my wall phone is now battery powered because I have FIOS. The battery only lasts six hours. Six hours after the power went out, so did the phone. My only recourse was my cell phone. The power at the lake goes out ALL THE TIME. Eventually, the phones will, too. What would you all do then?

One last point. Many phone companies are beginning to cut back on land line commitments. My parents have had no amount of trouble getting their lines repaired. The company (Verizon) keeps telling them just to get cell phones. Geez. Eventually, cell phones will be the only option. Better to have the tower now than to be scrambling later.

nj2nh

[OCDACTIVE]

I will be honest, I read many of the above posts but not every one word for word so I apologize in advance if someone already mentioned this. But there is already a camoflage tower at the base of red hill. You can see it if you come from Moultonboro ctr. head towards Ctr. Harbor, coming down the hill right before the Village Kitchen. It is certainly much higher then 10 feet above the tree line and is disguesed as a pine tree. It looks out of place but from the lake you can't see it. Nothing like those pictures of the radio towers. My only question is do they change the leaves for the seasons LOL.. (sarcastic question)

Now I will get flamed for this, but in my line of work I do everything 100% by phone. I don't know how I could conduct business without it. I have even had to resort to the crackberry (term for blackberry). I unfortunately have it on almost 24 / 7 whether I like to or not. I am very polite and take my conversations elsewhere if I am in a resturant etc and I do not have it on some annoying ringtone for everyone else to hear but I am for the towers. I need full coverage on the lake. There are too many dead zones even with Verizon (best carrier there thus far).

Flame away... 3,2,1,

[jmen24]

Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE

I will be honest, I read many of the above posts but not every one word for word so I apologize in advance if someone already mentioned this. But there is already a camoflage tower at the base of red hill. You can see it if you come from Moultonboro ctr. head towards Ctr. Harbor, coming down the hill right before the Village Kitchen. It is certainly much higher then 10 feet above the tree line and is disguesed as a pine tree. It looks out of place but from the lake you can't see it. Nothing like those pictures of the radio towers. My only question is do they change the leaves for the seasons LOL.. (sarcastic question)

Now I will get flamed for this, but in my line of work I do everything 100% by phone. I don't know how I could conduct business without it. I have even had to resort to the crackberry (term for blackberry). I unfortunately have it on almost 24 / 7 whether I like to or not. I am very polite and take my conversations elsewhere if I am in a resturant etc and I do not have it on some annoying ringtone for everyone else to hear but I am for the towers. I need full coverage on the lake. There are too many dead zones even with Verizon (best carrier there thus far).

Flame away... 3,2,1,

I do not think you are in the minority. I also use the crackberry for work and I am plugged in 24/7, 76% of my clients own second homes and those are the ones we work on, so when they come up on Friday night and call or email on Saturday I can respond quickly, in my line of work that is a MUST.

Having service everywhere keeps me plugged in but also allows me to play during work hours. It funny cause when the owner and I are out playing golf with some friends that also own a real estate company in the area we have to remind each other that it is our turn to hit because we are all emailing while playing. I know NO CELLS ON THE COURSE but that allows us to play during hours, after hours is a different story.

If I do not want to be bothered while on vacation I just set the profile to quiet and communicate with email and text. My office voicemail also sends any messages to my phone for listening while out of the office.

Whats the saying, you have to pay (be plugged in) to play

[Skip]

In depth article in this morning's Citizen regarding the ongoing dispute over the proposed Alton cell tower. Full story can be read HERE.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Grady223

"...Then again, you could hide them in the new windmill farm going up on Rattlesnake...!"

I like the way you think.

Originally Posted by Rattlesnake Gal

"...I'd rather not have a farm of windmills on Rattlesnake Island thank you...Much of the lake view from Rattlesnake Island is obstructed by trees..."

Some lake view from the top of Rattlesnake Island could be accomplished by selective-removal of a very few trees, and replacing them with a cell tower: Myself I think the new cell tower on Rattlesnake should be designed to look like a swimmer's snorkle.

From a Wolfeboro and Tuftonboro viewpoint, Rattlesnake Island looks much more like a snorkler than an alligator—or a rattlesnake.

I think it looks like Hillary—whilst snorkeling—but maybe that's just me

[RLW]

Why not build towers like the one below. It's funny looking and we can laugh instead of crying over the dam tower.

[EllyPoinster]

Originally Posted by RLW

Why not build towers like the one below. It's funny looking and we can laugh instead of crying over the dam tower.

Great idea - disguising it as a light pole!

[RonP]

As a year round resident of Alton Bay, it kills me that this small town has spent $181,129 of taxpayer dollars fighting construction of a cell tower that the majority of full-time and seasonal residents of this town want and need. I work from home, have no cell coverage here, and the monopoly granted Union Telephone leaves me few options to reduce communications costs that run in the hundreds of dollars per month out of pocket. Beyond that, my Union Telephone issued phone number cannot be ported to a VoIP carrier such as Vonage; I am told that Union Telephone "OWNS" my phone number! What is going on here! This town's ridiculous stand against needed technology presents a safety issue to residents and passers by, and the exclusionary town ordinance that limits cell tower height to 10' above the tree line (note to idiots who write ordinances: trees grow, cell towers don't) has personally cost me many thousands of dollars in communications charges and lost business over the past ten years. To add insult to injury, my tax payments are funding this assault on my finances and my business for one of the most ridiculous reasons I have ever heard; "people will be able to see it". $181,129 in wasted taxpayer dollars sure could have been put to much better use; textbooks for the school kids, needed repairs to Alton Central School, a couple of teacher's salaries, road repairs to name a few. It's time those of us who pay taxes to this town stand up to town officials who waste public funds spending other people's money! This is an outrage !!

The following is from the Citizen

Alton Bay Cell tower dispute may be headed to court
Alton:

By GAIL OBER
gober@citizen.com
Thursday, October 29, 2009

The battle between the three companies and the town's selectmen over the proposed cell phone tower on Miramichie Hill will likely go court.

Town officials said Monday the Alton taxpayers have spent $181,129 defending the decision to deny the variance, a despite numerous and recent efforts, have still not reached an equitable settlement with them.

"I really can't comment on anything about the suit other than how much we've spent so far in legal bills," said Town Administrator Russ Bailey.

The Citizen has also learned the previous legal firm that represented the applicants — Industrial Communications and Electronics, the actual builder of the tower, and two cell phone companies, RCC Atlantic [d.b.a. Unicel] and USCOC [d.b.a. U.S. Cellular] — advised the applicants to fight the 2006 ordinance saying "unless you can say with absolute certainty that there are no other sites available in the entire town of Alton, obtaining a variance may be quite difficult."

"All that would be needed to defeat the application would be one available property that could host a tower 10 feet above the tree line," wrote attorney Earl W. Duval of Duval & Associates shortly before Alton voters passed the revised Zoning ordinances in March of 2006.

It was almost five years ago when Industrial Communications and Electronics, a tower contracting firm, chose Miramichie Hill in East Alton as one of two spots where a cell tower would bridge the gaps in cell phone coverage along parts of Route 28.

At the time, in 2005, a tower on Miramichie Hill would have involved a zoning variance because it was not in one of four "overlay districts" that allowed cell towers. The town was also under an "interim growth management ordinance" that prevented any new construction until the March 2006 elections when voters approved new zoning ordinances.

Voters overwhelmingly adopted the new zoning ordinances that allows cell towers in all areas of Alton, with a few exceptions, but restricted their height to 10-feet above the average tree canopy.

The problem, said independent engineers, was the Miramichie Hill tower needed to be 120 feet tall to be effective — 61 feet above the average tree canopy and still required a variance.

After the Zoning Board of Appeals denied the Miramichie Hill variance in December 2006, the cell tower companies switched legal firms to Steven E. Grill of Devine, Millimet & Branch of Manchester and filed suit against the town.

The cell tower companies and their developer are challenging that the revised Alton Zoning Regulations of 2006 "effectively prohibit" cell towers throughout the entire community — a violation of federal law.

However, according to the applicants' previous attorney, "Case law has said time and time again that it is in the discretion of the community to choose whether it wants taller but fewer towers, or shorter, but more numerous towers," said Duval in the internal memorandum to the cell tower companies that was admitted into evidence after it was accidentally included in a file during the discovery portion of the suit.

Further muddying the legal waters is abutter David Slade who successfully petitioned the court to intervene and become a co-defendant with the town of Alton.

"I really don't think they can settle this without me," said Slade who has offered financial assistance to the town to offset its soaring legal costs.

Slade has described his battle against the cell tower companies as a David-versus-Goliath-type battle where the cell tower companies have deep enough pockets to continue to fight in court for what they want, often forcing small communities with limited resources to knuckle under their wishes.

Slade has also questioned whether or not the selectmen have the legal right to override a zoning board decision with a negotiated settlement, saying he would think any change in the planning proposal, such as reducing the height of the proposed tower, would need to be reevaluated by the land boards.

[upthesaukee]

RonP: first comment from me: in your commentary, the three letter acronym on about the fourth or fifth line may be OK in texting, facebook, myspace, email, etc., but would probably be considered inappropriate by most posters in the forum. Maybe an edit and delete would be better there .

Second, you may not be aware, but since the recent purchase of Union telephone by TDS, Metrocast has finally been able to offer digital telephone to residents in TDS's areas, including portaging your number. If you choose not to do Metrocast, and want Vonage, I would assume that if Metrocast can portage, then Vonage should be able to.

I happen to live off the lake in Alton on the west side of the bay, and if that cell tower on the east side had been approved, I would have great coverage at my house. Right now I only have one bar in the house, and one to two outside in the front yard. Go up my road a quarter of a mile, and I have 5 bars!. I shared your frustration.

So, I suggest contacting the carrier of your choice and hopefully you can get the ball rolling towards a better communication situation for you.

Welcome to the forum.

[RLW]

Alton now does have new ways to have their phone service and a additional one coming the end of April first part of May. If you have MetroCast, they offer a fine phone service at a reasonable cost of $44.95 for unlimited calling anywhere in the US also gives about 12 different free options with it (KEEP YOUR OLD NUMBER). The end of April the new phone company owners are coming out with a complete new line of phone, internet an what ever else they can pass on, at good competitive prices. This info was given to me by a customer rep of TDS (Telecommunications Corp.) the new company owners. Just wait and keep the faith, good things will come (Hopefully).

[webmaster]

You all should really consider using OOMA if you have cable or DSL Internet service. OOMA is even better than the cable company's own phone services and it is free after you buy the box. You'll never get another phone bill. A year ago it cost $209 on Amazon. In most cases you can transfer your existing number over for a small fee. I transferred mine from Verizon without trouble. You get voice mail (that you can also check on the Internet), caller ID and all the features you are used to.

Someone mentioned it here about a year ago and I bought one. It paid for itself in less than 3 months and we've been phone bill free ever since. I figure we've saved over $500 so far. It works flawlessly except the few times that our Internet service went out. Even then calls still go to voicemail.

One of my favorite things about OOMA is that it uses all your existing phones and wiring. You just disconnect your wiring where it comes in, plug the OOMA into a wall jack, and all your phones, answering machines, faxes, etc. just work.

OOMA has a premium service that gives you even more capabilities but the free service works great for me. I highly recommend OOMA.

[RLW]

Originally Posted by webmaster

You all should really consider using OOMA if you have cable or DSL Internet service. OOMA is even better than the cable company's own phone services and it is free after you buy the box. You'll never get another phone bill. A year ago it cost $209 on Amazon. In most cases you can transfer your existing number over for a small fee. I transferred mine from Verizon without trouble. You get voice mail (that you can also check on the Internet), caller ID and all the features you are used to.

Someone mentioned it here about a year ago and I bought one. It paid for itself in less than 3 months and we've been phone bill free ever since. I figure we've saved over $500 so far. It works flawlessly except the few times that our Internet service went out. Even then calls still go to voicemail.

One of my favorite things about OOMA is that it uses all your existing phones and wiring. You just disconnect your wiring where it comes in, plug the OOMA into a wall jack, and all your phones, answering machines, faxes, etc. just work.

OOMA has a premium service that gives you even more capabilities but the free service works great for me. I highly recommend OOMA.

Thanks for the info Don, but I do have one question. Do they work (out going) when one loses power as in my case I had to drop MetroCast as it would not work during the power outage and it is needed for the alarm system and medical reasons. If one is full time residency and has power backup most all cable units will work.

[Sunbeam lodge]

Originally Posted by webmaster

You all should really consider using OOMA if you have cable or DSL Internet service. OOMA is even better than the cable company's own phone services and it is free after you buy the box. You'll never get another phone bill. A year ago it cost $209 on Amazon. In most cases you can transfer your existing number over for a small fee. I transferred mine from Verizon without trouble. You get voice mail (that you can also check on the Internet), caller ID and all the features you are used to.

Someone mentioned it here about a year ago and I bought one. It paid for itself in less than 3 months and we've been phone bill free ever since. I figure we've saved over $500 so far. It works flawlessly except the few times that our Internet service went out. Even then calls still go to voicemail.

One of my favorite things about OOMA is that it uses all your existing phones and wiring. You just disconnect your wiring where it comes in, plug the OOMA into a wall jack, and all your phones, answering machines, faxes, etc. just work.

OOMA has a premium service that gives you even more capabilities but the free service works great for me. I highly recommend OOMA.

This sure sounds like something I could use.
I have a home on the lake and in Florida and currently have land line phones in both locations In addition to 2 mobile phones.
When i leave for the winter I either have to shut down the phones and pay to have them reinstalled when I return or put them on a vacation plan that is not too expensive but by the time they add all the fees it adds up.
I then have to do the same thing when I return.
I also have to do the same thing with the TV and internet.
There has to be a better way to do this. Would I need a separate unit for FLa?

Any one have any ideas

[RLW]

Originally Posted by Sunbeam lodge

There has to be a better way to do this. Would I need a separate unit for FLa?

Any one have any ideas

Yep, I have just one. Stay at the lake all year round and then you do not have all the connecting/dis-connecting fees.

[webmaster]

Originally Posted by Sunbeam lodge

Would I need a separate unit for FLa?

No, I'm pretty sure you could take the box back and forth with you. It's small and once it's set up would just need to be plugged in to power, internet and a wall jack. It should work anywhere on the Internet.

The only small problem could be the Enhanced 911 listing. If I remember correctly, you can select to have your number associated with your address for the 911 system when you register your OOMA. If you were going to move the box around you should probably not use the 911 listing.

[upthesaukee]

Originally Posted by Sunbeam lodge

This sure sounds like something I could use.
I have a home on the lake and in Florida and currently have land line phones in both locations In addition to 2 mobile phones.
When i leave for the winter I either have to shut down the phones and pay to have them reinstalled when I return or put them on a vacation plan that is not too expensive but by the time they add all the fees it adds up.
I then have to do the same thing when I return.
I also have to do the same thing with the TV and internet.
There has to be a better way to do this. Would I need a separate unit for FLa?

Any one have any ideas

Internet connection is internet connection, and I would not think that your change in location would have an effect, other than having to change your IP address with OOMA. One thing to remember is that if you are portaging your number, and friends are calling you from a landline without unlimited long distance calling, if your number is NH and you are in FL, those FL friends will be paying long distance to call you, and vice versa. We have friends that had NH cell phones, and when the moved down south, they kept the phones. Friends down there were getting long distance charges for a call from across the street.

[webmaster]

Originally Posted by upthesaukee

those FL friends will be paying long distance to call you, and vice versa.(

True, except for the vice versa. There are never any long distance charges for calls you make using OOMA.

[upthesaukee]

Originally Posted by webmaster

True, except for the vice versa. There are never any long distance charges for calls you make using OOMA.

I should have continued on after viceversa... if in NH with a FL number, folks up here would be long distance. my bad.

[webmaster]

Originally Posted by RLW

Thanks for the info Don, but I do have one question. Do they work (out going) when one loses power as in my case I had to drop MetroCast as it would not work during the power outage and it is needed for the alarm system and medical reasons. If one is full time residency and has power backup most all cable units will work.

The OOMA does need power but so do your cable modem and router. If internet and phone service are critical I would plug all 3 into a battery backup unit.

[SIKSUKR]

I just like listening to the radio commercials. I would try OOMA but I signed for Comcast triple play for 2 years.

[granitebox]

I've been using OOMA for almost 2 years. I can't recommend it enough. We've had no problems.

Regarding power outages - unless you have a analog phone any cordless phone in the house will cease to function when the power goes out.

[codeman671]

OOMA sounds great, I may try it at our home. I'd like to try it at the lake but we have satellite and it is rather finicky. Also, with the bandwith limits set by Hughes I am not sure how it would work. The latency may pose a problem.

[RonP]

Originally Posted by SIKSUKR

I just like listening to the radio commercials. I would try OOMA but I signed for Comcast triple play for 2 years.

Sure would be nice to have Comcast Triple Play available to residents of Alton Bay !!

[mcdude]

from Today's Citizen

Cell tower dispute nearing an end
Alton:
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
The Selectmen have reached a tentative agreement with the cell tower companies that want to build a tower on Miramichie Hill, but the attorney for abutter David Slade said his client isn't ready to sign on.

On March 3, selectmen agreed with Industrial Communication and Electronic, Inc. and two cell companies, RCC Atlantic [d.b.a. Unicel] and USCOC [d.b.a. U.S. Cellular], that a 100-foot tower could be built on the property at 486 East Side Drive.

As part of the agreement, the town also agreed that there would be "no just cause for further delay" and that the decision of the Alton Zoning Board of Adjustment on March 13, 2007 to deny the applicant's request for a height variance of 120 feet is meaningless.

The parties agree..." that further meetings, hearings or decisions of the Zoning Board of Adjustment would serve no useful purpose..." read the consent decree that has not been signed by a federal judge.

Slade lives next door and his family has owned the abutting property since 1953. Late last year, he successfully petitioned the court to intervene and his lawyer Paul Fitzgerald said he doesn't think the project can go forward without his client's agreement.

When he filed his petition to join the suit, Slade said the town of Alton, like so many other small towns, has waged a David-vs. Goliath-type battle against the deep-pocketed cell tower companies.

As of Oct 2009, Alton taxpayers had spent $181,000 in legal fees trying to uphold the Zoning Board's decision.

When the property was first identified as a site, it was not in one of the four areas designated by Alton's zoning ordinances that would be acceptable for cell towers.

In March of 2006, voters adopted new zoning ordinances that allow cell towers to be erected but restricted their height to 10 feet above the average tree canopy. The proposed ICE tower was initially 120 feet, or 61 feet above the tree canopy, and still required a variance.

Should the judgment and order be signed, the Zoning Board's denial of a variance for a 120-foot tower is vacated and amended to modify to grant the height variance to 100 feet with a full antenna array on the top so the entire structure is no more that 103 feet.

The agreement also stipulated that after five years the height of the tower may be extended provided the applicants received a variance from the Zoning Board.

The agreement further stipulates that ICE will submit revised plans and the Planning Board shall not act to reduce the maximum height of the tower or the antenna or seek to change the configuration as submitted by the applicant on June 19, 2006.

Fitzgerald said the court has given some time for his client to file a memorandum as to why he opposes the agreement.

Selectman Pat Fuller said that until a judge actually signs the order, she cannot comment.

Zoning Board Chair Paul Monzione said overall he had been very impressed with the Alton ZBA consistently applying the zoning laws, but said this could be a rare instance when complicated issues of federal law "can overwhelm and are inconsistent with local law."

Sometimes settlements are in the best interests of the town, Monzione said, adding that although he hasn't read the proposed order it appears the town's zoning laws will remain intact.

[RLW]

Originally Posted by RonP

Sure would be nice to have Comcast Triple Play available to residents of Alton Bay !!

You do, but it is under the name of MetroCast.

[Argie's Wife]

Originally Posted by RonP

Sure would be nice to have Comcast Triple Play available to residents of Alton Bay !!

Yes - the Metrocast 3-in-1 package is available as of February. Call them for more information and to get it installed. YEA!

[Gearhead]

Are we EVER going to get a cell tower in East Alton??? In a month or two the leaves will begin to open and I will once again lose my cell service. Grrr! I think there's only one person in the whole town against it.

[Merrymeeting]

The following headline was in this weeks Baysider. Full story on page 14

AT&T expanding coverage in Alton, New Durham

REGION — AT&T announced the expansion of its
mobile broadband network
in New Hampshire

The story doesn't have any details on when, how, or exactly where. Does anyone know?

[winniforlife]

Oh how I would love to have ATT service in West Alton... to use my iphone at the Marine would be wonderful!! Thanks for the update!

[upthesaukee]

http://www.wireless.att.com/coverageviewer/#?type=voice


for location, put in "sthy 11" and Alton Bay 03810. You can navigate the map using the arrows and see your "coverage".

Good luck. Great Marina, lousy cell coverage.

[Merrymeeting]

Originally Posted by upthesaukee

http://www.wireless.att.com/coverageviewer/#?type=voice


for location, put in "sthy 11" and Alton Bay 03810. You can navigate the map using the arrows and see your "coverage".

Good luck. Great Marina, lousy cell coverage.

Good info. But that shows what is in place now. Not what is planned.

[mcdude]

From the 6/2 Baysider

Another cell tower ruling

This ruling nullifies prior approvals

BY TIM CROES

Staff Writer

ALTON — A decision was handed down by the First Circuit Court of Appeals on
May 19 on the proposed cell phone tower in Alton that nullifies the prior local and
court approvals that would have allowed the construction of the tower at 486 East
Side Drive. The case has been in the court system since 2005, when Industrial Communications and Electronics, Inc. proposed a tower in Alton for two wireless companies. David and Marilyn Slade, whose property abuts the proposed tower, objected to the construction of the tower because it would stand in line of the panoramic view of the lake and the surrounding mountains. The company determined that the tower would need to be 120 feet above the ground and applied for a variance to the zoning board of adjustments and were denied.
The company then sued the town. The town then began to negotiate a settlement
with Industrial Communications and the co-plaintiffs, the wireless companies,
which the Slades opposed. An agreement was made between the company and the
town to vacate the board’s decision and permit a 100-foot tower without further meetings. The ruling on May 19 allows for the Slades to continue the suit even though an agreement between Industrial Communications and its co-plaintiffs and the town was reached.

[Argie's Wife]

Am I understanding this correctly that the construction of the town can't begin until the lawsuit with Mr. Slade has been resolved?

[Gearhead]

I have NO coverage at my home on the east side. Will aluminum foil and an umbrella work?

Maybe I'll call Mr. Slade and ask if he gets reception at HIS house. Oh wait- he lives in New Jersey!