Cell Phone Towers Coming to Alton Bay

[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

[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.

[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!

[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.

[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.)