Get over it and get on with it!
 

In response to Russ Wilson's comments:

First: The whole "threatening the health and well being of the residents" argument is just baseless and has been addressed elsewhere in this forum. Also, if you want to talk "health", think about the fact that trees, like the ones ripped down for lines on poles, are what process the CO2 we all emit. So, do you really want to get into the "health" argument?

Second: If you don't think that picture is "affecting any view", then you're living in a different state than I am! I think that view, especially of the large swath of forest torn up the side of the mountain, is significantly more offensive than the 10' that the Alton cell towers would be sticking up above trees. Who cares if they are electric or phone lines? Tearing up the hillside for lines on the land is much more offensive to me. I find it particularly offensive as I'm driving toward the North Country anticipating a view of beautiful mountains.

Third: This marring "Alton Bay's scenic vistas" argument is really getting ridiculous. Should we not allow Gunstock to exist because it needs a tower on top due to flight paths? This is really about a couple people's individual property values. We actually don't even know if they will decrease. Hey, someone who wants to buy them may just come along and say, "I get great cell service here so I can work from home! Hurrah!"...and it will increase the value! (No sillier an argument than how much it will ruin Alton's views in my opinion.)

All joking aside, the studies have been done; the arguments have been made. Read through the forum and stop rehashing the same stuff over and over. We need cell coverage and this is the best, if not perfect, way to get it. In a year or so no one will even notice these towers are there.

Honestly...once again I ask, shall we all go back to kerosene lanterns and messenger pigeons so we can rip down all the ugly poles and lines covering massive amounts of our state and every roadway in it?

Post Script
 

One more note to Mr. Wilson...do hope you don't have a microwave oven in your house! Just think of the damage we must be doing by just about every structure in America having a microwave oven! Remember when they first came out how we were warned fiercely about the health risks? Yeah...and that's why just about everyone has one in their home/office/RV/school/restaurant/etc. today. They didn't go away and neither are cell phones going away, regardless of how much so-called-safety hype Mr. Wilson is spewing forth in his "Baysider" article. Sure, maybe the earliest, earliest microwave ovens had some leakage, but we're way past that stage with cell phones and cell towers.

I would so much like to get rid of the $60 - $70 land line charge I pay in addition to our $70 per month cell phone charge, but I can't. I can't because I need/choose to have and use a cell phone (for safety as well as convenience) and have no service at my home. I wouldn't need a land line phone if I did.

Addtionally and again, I will not be swayed by the naysayers on the safety issue. People who cause accidents due to talking on their phones while driving (anything) are being stupid, reckless people. People who are using them inappropriately in restaurants and other public places are being rude and thoughtless.

It's not the cell phones that are having poor judgement. Gosh, if that were true, because motorcyclists chose not to wear helmets, perhaps we should prohibit the use of motorcycles in NH....hey, now there's an idea worth pursuing! Oh yes, and all that noise, trash, and congestion (not to mention the ten deaths this year!) they generate during Motorcycle Week, well that's the motorcycles' fault, right, not the drivers?! (Just making a point; don't blast me for an analogy!) :D

What IS the tree line? Is that number taken from a view from the highest tree on the slope?

The average height of all the trees in Alton? The height of Alton's average pine trees? Or the tallest pine tree on record? The tallest pine tree is Maine's, at 240'.

How about a definitive number?

Hey buddy - see that dead horse? Go give it another whack!
 

I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of people that are complaining about these cell phone pine trees are some of the same people that would be complaining how BAD cell service is when they're on their drive up to the lake for the weekend. The difference is they want to put the tower in "your backyard". If they were installing another one of these towers on 93 in Concord, you probably wouldn't care so much, yet you'd appreciate the added convenience. The same debate has been made about prisons, long before cell phones were even invented. "There should be more prisons - just don't build one next to me."

At least they are taking steps to minimize the appearance. Let's face it, six months after they put it up, you'll never notice it as much as you THINK you will. Since Memorial Day, I've driven up to the lake three times, and it wasn't until I read this thread that I even remembered that there are 3 HUGE radio towers for WGIR on the way up. I passed them each time (up and back) and never noticed them - not once.

It's as simple as this - If you don't like the Pine-O-Matic cell phone towers, vote "no" when you have the opportunity. If you don't have the opportunity to vote directly on the issue, call your selectmen, representative, etc. and let him know your opinion on the issue. THIS is the way you might actually affect some change.

Cell phones aren't going away. Hell, let's say we could wave a magic wand and they would - people would find something else to complain about. "Man, those CB radio waves from the guy next door are bleeding over into my cable TV. Boy, remember the 'good old days' when we still had cell phones?"

If your argument is about the "technology", then while we're at it let's eliminate other such nuisances as ATM's, portable defribulators, FM radios, ABS brakes, side curtain airbags - all the things that make our lives easier and potentially save our lives. Plus, all this "evil" technology isn't really being forced on us like some might suggest - we're buying this stuff and asking for more (There's a reason why I don't make a living manufacturing and selling Monkey Fondling Reciprocating Transducers - nobody's buying them. But cell phones are another story - show me a family with kids that doesn't have at least two).

You know, it WAS a lot nicer back in the "good old days". Hell, there was a lot less noise on the lake when everyone was sailing or paddling. It's just funny that some of the same people that are beating this dead horse about "why do people need to talk so much on their cell phones while at the lake anyway" are some of the same people who just cruised into Meredith Bay using their GPS navigation system on their fuel injected Sea Ray while listening to their iPod.

Passion obscures reality
 

This is a very long thread with some passionate and informative posts.

Ms. Winni. The story of your husband's cellular experiences after an accident at the end of 11-D was interesting. He could not reach 911 on the cell. You claim "No Signal" but it might have been no connection to the E911 system. An inability to connect to 911 does not necessarily mean no cell coverage. He managed to get a cell call through to you with information about the situation and his location. Enough for you to find him, right where he said he was. So what if he could not be seen from route 11, he told you he was at 11-D. So there was some cellular coverage at his location. Even if it was roaming it was coverage. The police would have found him at the end of 11-D just like you found him. If he had not wasted his cell signal on the call to you he could have reached 911 and saved time.

What if he had used that cell call to dial 911 instead of calling you? He would have had his call and location go right to the 911 call center. If the cell system has enough signal to contact you it should contact 911 too, right?


Ms Winni, you seem to want this proposal to go through regardless of any other solution. You claim that the only objections to the new cell towers are the aesthetics and the claim about RF health hazards.

You are a Ham Radio yet you use terms that are not accurate and you do not answer all the legitimate questions put to you. You say the proposed cell towers will be for cellular relay only. A cell relay tower does not take calls from cell phones, it merely relays a group of calls and data from one cell receiving and transmitting site and sends it to another relay or to the switching system.

You talk about the, "Tree line". When asked for clarification about the height of the towers you repeat, 10 feet above the tree line. Tree line is the area on the mountain where the trees stop growing. You don't mean that you probably mean tree tops but you don't answer the questions.

Your description of telephone lines that are really high voltage lines also shows a lack of technical expertise. Maybe you did not want to bring in the topic of radiation concerns from high voltage lines or you just don't know the difference.

Using microwave ovens as an example of misplaced RF concerns is not a fair comparison. What is the frequency difference between microwave ovens and cellular phones? Not close is it. Ever see a sign in a fast food restaurant warning patrons with pacemakers that a microwave oven was in use? Must be some RF concerns there. Do you keep away from all radiation? How about 60Hz?

Ms. Winni, how can you ignore the questionable ethics and tactics in the history of Industrial Communications and Electronics?

Please review this thread and answer the unanswered questions as best you can. Try to keep an open mind. There can really be more than one solution to better cell coverage than this one proposal.

cell phones
 

I have a cell phone for use for the summer. I had to call my daughter in Newmarket from Alton Bay. Could not get on (I have Verison) It took me to Chichester before I could get on. However I can call her from Norwich CT and have no problem. If towers is the problem and they can be so they are not unsightly then do it. I know they have talked about putting a tower in our church tower and the church would get some revenue from it.

Communications has been moving the last few years at an unbelievable state and we have to learn to use it and move along.

John -- Verizon is the BETTER choice in the Lakes Region. I had them for years, and rarely had a problem. About five years ago, I switched to Cingular because Verizon got ZERO reception in my new office building. But with Cingular, I was put on the GSM network, which at the time had not been built out. Well, in New Hampshire, it still isn't built out. If the towers will host some GSM traffic, it will benefit a lot of visitors. The GSM coverage vanishes north of the Epsom circle, and reappears in sparse little pockets north or Wolfeboro. Decent but spotty GSM coverage on the eastern side of the lake. Verizon is good on the eastern side.

Response to Commodore
 

Ok, I have some serious nit-picking to respond to, but I won't quote all of Commodore's criticism, just the parts I will respond to, as it would make my response too large. If you do not want to read through all this nonsense, I suggest you just go to the hearings, do some listening, and even state your case, that is, if the governmental types ever get around to letting the public speak. However, I could not let Commodore's response go, as his main goal seems to be to discredit me and not to put forth a substantial argument opposing the proposed towers. So, I guess I'll give it a go, though this is going to turn out to be ridiculously long.

"If he had not wasted his cell signal on the call to you he could have reached 911 and saved time." This is just a ridiculous statement! You don't have the facts clear. As I stated, he did try 911 before he tried me and he did not get a signal. It was not because he was unable to connect to E911; it was because the signals are so spotty in this area. You can take 1/2 step away and find a signal, then move another 1/4 step and loose it. In a high tension type situation like an accident, it can be very frustrating. I know this to be true because while I was waiting around for the paper exchange once I got to the scene, I took out my phone and tested the signal strengths. Baby steps made the difference.

"The police would have found him at the end of 11-D just like you found him." Wrong again; they were really ticked off that they went flying by the end of 11-D when they came back and I first stopped the policeman. He clearly was relieved that I could bring him to where the accident scene was and complained right along with me about the terrible cell coverage. The only reason I even knew which end of 11-D to go to (because the connection dropped before my husband could say more) was that I knew he was coming home from the Gilford end not the Alton end. The police wouldn't have known that.

"Ms Winni, you seem to want this proposal to go through regardless of any other solution. You claim that the only objections to the new cell towers are the aesthetics and the claim about RF health hazards." You clearly have not done your homework. These are not the objections I focused on, they are what the opponents (i.e. abutters) are objecting to.

"You are a Ham Radio..." Sorry, no; I have no dials, buttons, or readouts, and am not attached to an antenna. If you really knew what you were talking about, you would have said, "You are a Ham..."

"... yet you use terms that are not accurate and you do not answer all the legitimate questions put to you. You say the proposed cell towers will be for cellular relay only. A cell relay tower does not take calls from cell phones, it merely relays a group of calls and data from one cell receiving and transmitting site and sends it to another relay or to the switching system." NO KIDDING! Really; gosh...I didn't know that! Honestly, if you think I didn't know that then you are really looking for something to pick at. Yeah, we all go around calling them "cell relay towers" instead of "cell towers". Gosh, and I thought there was a little guy sitting up on top of the tower answering my phone for me, too! Would you like me to name the seven original communication layers for you too?

"You talk about the, "Tree line". When asked for clarification about the height of the towers you repeat, 10 feet above the tree line. Tree line is the area on the mountain where the trees stop growing. You don't mean that you probably mean tree tops but you don't answer the questions." You know, I really think you ought to attend some of the hearings before you try to do me in. I'm a hiker from way back (say, how many 4000 footers have you done?) and I am well aware of what a "tree line" is on a mountain top. Unfortunately, the ZBA and legal-type talkers at the meetings are (yes, improperly, but never-the-less are) using this phrase to mean the visual line made by the top of the trees. I'm thinking maybe they just don't want to spout out the words, "Visual line made by the top of the trees..." every time they want to reference it; 'ya think?

"Your description of telephone lines that are really high voltage lines also shows a lack of technical expertise." No, it means you (and a bunch of other people) missed the point. It did not/does not matter what those lines are on the land/ground poles/towers. The point of the picture was that lines that must connect to each other and run along towers/poles on the ground necessarily must have huge swaths of trees cut out around them and are much more grotesque than a simple stand alone tower (be it cell "relay" or anything else). (Hmm......funny one of the two largest companies building air and space craft in this country, which I will not name, used to pay me whole bunches of money to head up the technology areas of entire sites for many years. Glad to hear you are a better judge of my abilities, since you know me so well, than they were!)

"Maybe you did not want to bring in the topic of radiation concerns from high voltage lines or you just don't know the difference." Or...maybe I did not want to bring in the RF issue because it is a non-issue, i.e. the government has ruled it so and in reality, it is so. I'm not going to waste space here rehashing that yet once again.

"Using microwave ovens as an example of misplaced RF concerns is not a fair comparison." Once again you miss the point! (Perhaps you have issues with abstract concepts?) The comparison was not about output! The comparison was to point out that people were scared to death of microwave ovens when they first came out until they realized they were virtually harmless to individuals using them and now they are everywhere. The same will be true of cell phones and cells towers soon. People will get over this silliness about RF. (Note: this is known as an "analogy".)

"Please review this thread and answer the unanswered questions as best you can." Not worth my time and effort to keep repeating (pun intended) myself and the answers others have already given. Instead, why don't you, "Try to keep an open mind," and go to the hearings instead? Why also don't you delve into the stacks and stacks of material available at the Town Hall on all this and then maybe you can answer your own questions, because I think the important ones have already been answered sufficiently.

"There can really be more than one solution to better cell coverage than this one proposal." Yes; it would be nice to get one (as in one, once!) that actually works, though. As far as I can see from the multiple engineering studies, the proposed solution is the best so far.

So, any more arrows you want to throw at me? Go for it. (Oh yes, and if you would like some grammar and punctuation tutoring, I'm available for that as well.) Maybe someone else can pick up my side of it if anyone out there cares. I'm pretty sick of all this. Yes, I am "passionate" because all I really want is for MY CELL PHONE TO WORK!

If you actually read through all this and made it to this point, I thank you and congratulate you on your endurance!

Looks like some kind of tower has been erected. Not sure if it is a cell phone tower or not. This tower is located on the east side of the bay toward the Alton Village end and the photo is taken from the west side of the bay from Alton Mountain Road. Regretfully my camera only has a 7.5X zoom so the photo isn't the clearest. Has anyone noticed it from the lake?
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/photopo...m/IMG_7753.JPG

Maybe if it were painted day-glow orange, it will be easier to see from the Lake and where you took this picture.

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/photopo...m/IMG_7753.JPG

Letter to the Editor of The Baysider

Have to wonder if "the writer" has a problem with Democracy.


So, Cell towers are spoilers and McMansions are not?

wireless antenna's
 

Isn't it surprising that something that is needed, these toweres, for communications in this new day and age and people complain what they look like. I seen these poles sticking out of the woods, big deal, the woods are still there. How about the cutting of trees off a mountain to install new homes, or cutting mountains aside to make highways wider?

I think a requirement of these towers to be painted/coated a Army Green would be an improvement rather than aluminum

How about these areas on 28-A that have been trees removed for houses but then they stop the work. Or all them trees taken down for mcmansions all around the lake.

I have heard it said on this forum that cell phones are not needed on or around the lake. This coming from people who use the internet. Why is it that your means of communications has to be the one that controls how everybody communicates?

I hate cell phones, why, because in and around Alton Bay they do not work. They could be a big asset out on the lake if you break down and need a tow boat, or help. I noticed lately that waving a paddle does not work anymore.

Paddle, we don't need no stinkeen paddle
 

Well that's probably true. But in true Nawlins fashion you could flash your, err, well maybe not you, but someone could flash their, err, well, aahh, hmmm, well you know and that would certainly get some attention. Now that I think of it even I could flash my, err, hmmm, well, "parts" and perhaps get some attention. Mind you it wouldn't be helpful attention or even welcome attention but I'm pretty sure the MP would be along in short order to find out what the problem was. ;)

Cell Towers
 

Letter to the Editor of The Baysider
Quote:
Provisions of Ordinance 603 must be revisited


I being a non-resident, I guess those that fall into that category can justt complain and/or agree with the writer. I myself feel that if one believes in what the writer put on paper should follow the mans words. He appears to have put many hours into the reseach and going to meetings. This way of trying to be heard in a postive way.:liplick:

Tried to remain silent here.
 

The Baysider recieved on 9-7 has a rather lengthy letter to the editor disagreeing with Mr. Norman's points, so this is not the only side of the coin. I do not subscribe so I can't copy and paste, and could scan it and paste it, but quite frankly it is a rather long letter and don't feel that I should take up the space in this thread with it.

I just have to smile as I look across the bay and really have to look for the tower that is pictured above, but can see the houses on Lakewood drive from nearly the end of the bay (5 mile away) and can see them also from Rte 11 just after entering Alton from New Durham. 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. (wouldn't be so bad if they would landscape the properties like Mr. Bahre has, but then again I digress.

Until such time as we are willing to look skyward and on a clear night, say "Oh look, Verizon 12 satellite and Nextel 22 are nearly aligned...Karma must be pretty good tonight"... we may just have to put up with a few towers. All the talk of the megatowers referenced earlier are from units in major metropolitan area, and are highly unlikely to be seen in NH at all, nevermind in the lakes area.

My humble opinion, we need the towers, and they can be constructed in a manner as to be minimally intrusive.

Upthesaukee signin' off the soap box!!!:emb:

Wow-
Following this whole Cell Phone Tower Controversy. I must say both sides are making very good points. I read one good post and agreed with it, then the next well thought out post and agreed with that. And so on & so on it went.
I never thought I would put so much thought into cell phone towers. But lately I have in following this particular thread.
As much as people say they "hate" cell phones, nearly everyone uses them, nearly everyone can hardly remember life without them. Whether these towers are erected or not, everyone's lives will move on. I don't believe anyone will have a monumental life change as a result of them. (Except for the arguements as to the use of them in emergency situations.)
As I read over the posts back & forth in this particular part of the forum I can't help but think: "How truly wonderful is it that we (as Americans) live in a place where the 'biggest' concern is how the view from our homes (or vacation homes or boats or waverunners etc) might be 'destroyed' by a cell phone tower?"
I don't know, but so close to the eve of the anniversary of the most horrific terrorist attacks on American soil I can't help but wonder: Aren't there far bigger things to be this passionate and worried about? Does anyone see the Warthogs fly overhead in NH on their practice/ training mission while endless arguements are continuing about the de-beautification of the hillside.
I'm not saying there shouldn't be both sides represented in the arguement. It is important. Just don't forget to keep things in perspective here. We are extremely fortunate- they could be far worse.

Balloon Test to be Conducted
 

Quotes from "The Baysider"

another indication of the questionable practices of Industrial Communications?

http://www.lwa.org/gallery/albums/album01/aac.sized.jpg
Photo of a recent balloon test conducted on Lake Wentworth in Wolfeboro. Photo by NomdePlume

Balloon tether much smaller than 18 inches
 

Not only is the 4 foot balloon smaller than a cell antenna array, the support structure (tower) is much thicker than the balloon tether. Plus the array, as I recall, is supposed to consist of 4 tiers of cell antenna banks.

The tower is supposed to be 5 feet at the base tapering to a foot and a half at the top. How big is the balloon tether? I'll bet it's less than an inch.

Now, if the tower top (balloon) is going to be just 10 feet above the tree tops they might be hard to see.:laugh:

---------

If, as Winni claims, the 2 locations are the ONLY places guaranteed to provide full service to Alton Bay then what's with the 18 properties mentioned? And what about the earlier (rejected) application to erect those 2 new towers in Wolfeboro to provide that coverage?

There are still many unanswered questions raised in this thread.

While I'll admit to not liking the towers in general, I also am like many in that I don't notice them for the most part and like the fact that I can spend more time at the lake when being able to take work calls from there.

However at night, one in Alton is more noticable than most I've seen. Can anyone explain why it needs the garrish white strobe light as opposed to the more normal, less offensive red beacon?

I'll second that!!

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

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

Mixed Messages....
 

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

The Baysider

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

A little bit of background on Industrial Communications

Well put!
 

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.

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.

Background on DiRico (applicant for Alton Towers)
 

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.

Thanks Al.
:cool:

Contentious Meeting
 

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.

While on the cellphone topic...
 

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

http://www.cellphonesforsoldiers.com/

great idea!
 

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

Permission Granted for one Camouflaged Cell Tower
 

From the Baysider...

My Hat's Off to Ron Pearson
 

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

from the Baysider.

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. :D

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??

Likewise
 

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.

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!

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.