Cell Phone Towers Coming to Alton Bay

[Sandy Beach]

Are they proposing towers that are 70 feet above the trees or 10 feet above tree level? The information is conflicting in different postings.

Who paid for the survey that concluded that this was the only solution for full cellular coverage to Alton Bay and islands? Who conducted the study? Who recommended the firm that did the study?

Will the proposed towers provide service for all cell phone companies or just Rural Cellular Corp or Unicel?

What I've read of the Letters to the Editor linked from the mcdude postings it appears that the proposal seeks variances from current zoning laws. There is also a question of whether the proposed towers will be for cell use or just an excuse to put on many radio transmitters. The letter writer said it could have as much power as a large radio station. How much power is that? How far are these locations from homes?

All things considered, could this be an attempt by Industrial Communications and Engineering to get a foothold and then add lots of antennas to the cell tower ?

[Bubba]

1) I carry both VHF and cell on boat. Being a little older than most I guess, and having started my boating on saltwater, having at least one VHF on board is standard operating procedure. Having a cell phone was a nice addition close to land to call home.

It does surprise me how few boaters have VHF, let alone use VHF, on freshwater.

2) And as far as not using cell phones while at the helm (or driving the car for that matter), prohibiting use makes me laugh. Talking on the phone is not the problem. If it was, then radios shouldn't be used. (How about truckers using CB's??, Or police not using radios or typing on computer while driving?) The issue is the unattentiveness of the operator, whatever the device. Or non-device. Turning around to discipline children, for example. In states where hand free devices are required for the driver to talk on the phone, the problem is not the talking with a hand to the ear. It is the dialing of the phone that is the distraction. How about changing the radio station or cd?

Someone has the tag, "You can't fix stupid." It is not the device, it is the operator. (Here's where we take a left turn and talk about Capt Bonehead.)

Thanx for letting me spew.

[Skipper of the Sea Que]

Here's a picture of a Frank DiRico Industrial Communications and Electronics tower in Foxboro (Foxborough) MA. This was mentioned in the headlines as the one with a permit for 450' that grew an extra 115'.

I tried to show the whole tower (there is a very large building under the tower for all the equipment) and added INSERTS to show more detail of the various levels. Note that the lowest insert is the CELL ANTENNA group.

[Winni]

Skipper, you are using ridiculous scare tactics, and I hope most people are realizing how really base that tactic is. You KNOW this is not what the proposed towers are to look like. They will only be 10 feet above the tree line, for cell relays only, and probably look like a fake pine tree. Anyone who looks at your pictures and believes that's what we are to get is just...well, you know...the s****d word.

Again, I have no connection to these companies, but I DO NEED CELL coverage. It happened AGAIN just yesterday! My husband was in an accident on the road near the north end of the 11-D/ Rt. 11 junction here in Alton Bay. (One of those lovely huge trucks carrying motor cycles backed into him before he could get the car into reverse. Grumble; grumble...that's another story.)

He tried "911" on his cell phone, but got "No Signal"! So, he tried to get me on his cell phone. All I got from him was that he couldn't get 911; it was an emergency, something about "...in an accident at the end of 11-D...", and the signal dropped because all you can get there is roaming and you drop in and out of cells all over the place.

I called 911 for him on the land line but could give them no information as to whether there were injuries or anything else. So, I just headed out to the scene. I heard the police cruiser whiz by full blast up on Rt. 11, but when I had called on the land line, I had no idea exactly where the accident was.

As it turns out, it was around the bend of 11-D and couldn't be seen from Rt. 11. So, I had to go up and wait for the cruiser to come back and flag him down. No, there were no injuries THIS TIME. But, what about next time and the time after that and if there were injuries where moments counted? Why isn't the safety of everyone, with a technology now available to us, the ONLY issue here? I just don't get it.

As we have hashed over many times in this forum before, people will say, "Well, what happened before we had cell phones?" The answer is, "People died! People hurt more; etc." What about before we had transplant surgery, light bulbs, radio towers, etc.? There will always be "before" and "after" and there will always be people who fight change to the end. But, how many of those people will be glad that change happened when they need emergency services?

These scare tactics are just ridiculous!!! We are in the 21st century. We have the technology to do things better. We are letting huge chain stores like Hannaford into our town which require a stop light, but we aren't going to allow people to have cell service?

This is all about the view issue for a couple of abutters and not about safety or the public good, and we all know it. So, let's stop the silly scare tactics and give up these ridiculous counter attacks! At the very least, admit what the real issue is and be honest about why you are objecting!

[Winni]

I called the Alton Planners office today and was told the joint Public Hearings with the Planning Board and ZBA would indeed run from 6:00 p.m. to 7:15 p.m. tomorrow, Tuesday, June 20th, as published in "The Baysider". What they aren't telling anyone is the meeting is to be held at the Prospect Mtn. High School. I only found out because someone (I think her name was Sharon, but I'm not sure) was nice enough to add that piece of information as an afterthought when I called.

I had to go into the Town Hall on other business today and saw nothing notifying the public of the change in location. One would think that an issue raising this kind of discussion in the town would at least warrant a notice on the entry door! I don't understand this kind of manipulation of the public and I don't understand why the hearings are being limited to the 7:15 p.m. ending time.

If these board meetings run as usual, they will use up the first hour motioning this and seconding that and then checking with each other to make sure they did it. It's highly unlikely the public will get to say much of anything. Sorry to seem so negative, but that is what I have observed. It is very aggravating!

I see no reason to limit the ability of the townspeople to speak their minds on this issue, regardless of whether they are for or against it. After attending the last ZBA meeting, where we were told we would be able to speak and yet were not allowed to, I hold out little hope for many of us being allowed to be heard at this one, but I figured I'd try to get the word out about the location change anyway!

[Skipper of the Sea Que]

Originally Posted by Winni

Skipper, you are using ridiculous scare tactics, and I hope most people are realizing how really base that tactic is. You KNOW this is not what the proposed towers are to look like. They will be 10 feet above the tree line, for cell relays only, and…..

The TRUTH can be ridiculous and scary. I’ve not seen the Alton proposal. The picture I presented, as stated, was of the Foxboro MA tower built by the Co-Applicant for the proposed Alton Cell towers. I assumed that people would be smart enough to read what I’ve written and realize why I posted the picture. I'll try to illuminate and reiterate my position: it’s Not about WHAT may be coming to Alton but WHO. It was but one of a few examples of Industrial Communications and Electronics (ICE) at work.

Once upon a time, ICE eventually received permits to build a 450 foot communications tower in Foxboro MA (pictured above) – This tower is WAY BIGGER than what people claim is proposed for Alton. Industrial Communications and Electronics (President, Frank DiRico) had the tower erected. Over a period of time it was discovered that the tower had GROWN an additional 115’ higher than the original permit allowed. Put another way. After Mr. DiRico’s company built the tower “by the book” the tower grew another 25%!!

There are other ICE towers that clandestinely grew taller too. You may find that revealing this story is a ridiculous and scary tactic. That kind of history could well be. It sure causes me concern. Again I say the ONLY things in common between the Foxboro tower picture and the proposed Alton Cell sites are the tower APPLICANT, Industrial Communications & Electronics and cell antennae.

What does the disclaimer in my Mutual Funds say? Past history is no guarantee of future performance – or something like that. That could apply here about ICE. They seem to have a thriving business and many satisfied customers. That does not relieve me of my concerns.

Originally Posted by Winni

Why isn’t the safety of everyone, with a technology now available to us, the ONLY issue here? I just don’t get it.

You have a point. You are driving a car with ONSTAR, impact avoidance systems, front and side air bags and all the latest safety technology now available to us. So why should anything stand in your way of full cell phone coverage? I don’t know. I’m sure you have the best cell service available (with the most roaming capabilities) and the most useful cell phone (multi mode, Tri-band) not just a GSM or a Nextel or digital only phone. You probably have a cell phone docking station in your car to allow for an outside antenna and higher power for better cell coverage. For quite awhile I refused to change from my high power "bag phone" with outside antenna to a tiny hand held phone - I wanted the best coverage. Same with the Verizon REGIONAL plan I had. I didn't want to change to their America’s Choice Plan because I would lose coverage in Northern NH (and other places) due to contractual agreements between cell carriers.

Originally Posted by Winni

These scare tactics are just ridiculous!!! {snip} but we aren’t going to allow people to have cell service?

I thought the topic had to do with where the cell towers go and who puts them there. Who wants to deny you or anyone of cell coverage? Not me. Why did the Zoning Board turn down the proposal? Ask them. Is there really one and only one way to provide full cell coverage around the Alton Bay area? I would imagine there are more ways to accomplish this worthy goal and more than one provider up to the task.

Originally Posted by Winni

…At the very least, admit what the real issue is and be honest about why you are objecting!

OK, I'll stop being subtle. I take exception to the implication that I am anything other than honest. I DO NOT object to adding cell towers in the area. I don’t know how to make this more clear. I personally have little confidence in Frank DiRico and Industrial Communications and Electronics. . My concerns are about ICE and not about cell tower aesthetics.

You claim the proposed towers will be 10 feet above the tree tops. Other posts claim a different height. Assuming 10’, is the top of the tower 10’ above tree tops or is it the bottom tier (of 4) of cell antennae that will be 10 feet above the tree tops? And what happens as those trees grow? Why maybe the tower will need to grow too.

I’m trying to decide if it would be worthwhile to share one of the personal, one-on-one experiences I’ve had with Frank DiRico and in a different situation an episode I had with ICE. I’ve got more to say but this is already too long. I hope I’ve made myself clear Winni and that you have opened your door to reality . Let us know what happens at the zoning meeting.

73

[Mark]

Is this the same Francis DiRico that you all are talking about?

Find CaseLaw Appeal

Very clever man. In this appeal he explains how he pays his taxes. He kept 2 different sets of books with one set hidden from his accountants. Is this the same DiRico? Anyone know more about this tax story?

Long time forum reader.
Mark

[nj2nh]

Gotta speak my peace on this one. Verizon or Cingular or someone is trying to put a cell tower in my town here in Jersey. We have NO coverage here whatsoever. Many people are making an issue of it, but there is really no point in doing so. Not one time has a cell company lost a lawsuit about putting up a tower. Not even once. No excuse (health, asthetics, whatever) works. In the end, the tower goes up and the town which protested loses the money. They lose twice in fact. They lose the money spent on the litigation and they lose the money on the lease since the cell company invariably puts the tower on private land.

Look, I don't like the look of those blasted towers, but in weighing the pros and cons including the prospect of successful litigation and the cost, well, just let them put the damn thing up. They are going to anyway and Alton might as well reap the benefit.

Jersey Girl

[mcdude]

Winni: I noted in today's Baysider that they posted a photo in the Letters section that looked mysteriously like the one you posted above in this thread.

There was also a rather interesting letter to the editor that began something like this....

The hysteria over the proposed cell phone tower in Alton is directly traceable to anti-tower websites. The rhetoric from these sites is the same fear and doom propaganda that has been disproven hundreds of times, yet this is regularly regurgitated as factual.

Anyway, I digress...

You never got back to us about what went on at the hearing the other night?

McD

[Winni]

Originally Posted by mcdude

Winni: I noted in today's Baysider that they posted a photo in the Letters section that looked mysteriously like the one you posted above in this thread.

There was also a rather interesting letter to the editor that began something like this....



Anyway, I digress...

You never got back to us about what went on at the hearing the other night?

McD

Ahhh...it is a mystery isn't it??? Since they did not print my name, I guess I can fess up and say, "Yes, I did submit that picture to 'The Baysider'." I was very pleased they printed it, though I did not expect them to print my comment. My comment was to them. When I sent the picture, I said they could use it only if it was used to make the following point....but they quoted me anyway. I wasn't paying attention to grammar, etc., as I would have had I been writing an editorial, but I guess it doesn't really matter as long as it helps make the point!

As for the hearing...oh, this is SOOOOO bad! First, I haven't been on the forum at all for days until just now and only read this one post of yours, mcdude, so I'm not caught up with what is being said. I was in Boston the past few days.

[An aside: if you can possibly get to see the "Americans in Paris" exhibition of paintings at the MFA, you must. It will absolutely take your breath away. Our son and girlfriend are members, so we were able to go during the MFA member's preview for free. How lucky are we!!!]

As for the hearing, I will have to control my desired use of four letter words. I cannot even tell you how mad I was. Keep in mind this process has been going on for TWO, yes, that's 2!, years. Once again, they made the public wait around and canceled the meeting about 25 minutes after it was due to start. There were two members of the ZBA missing, so they did not have a quorum. You think maybe they could have told us all that at the beginning???

I felt bad for the company and their lawyers. They travelled 3-1/2 hours to get to the non-meeting. Then, the contractor asked if they could get the balloon test done ahead of time in preparation for the next meeting, as he knew they would ask him to do it before any decision could be made, and, of course, they said, "No." Such silliness this whole political business is most of the time!

Here's the rub, however. Kathy M. was the town planner. I do not know if she resigned, was asked to resign, or was fired. I do know that she had a heart of lead and I don't think I've ever seen the corners of her mouth even slightly turn up. I've had trouble with her in the past on other public non-profit projects, so I'm just as glad to see her go.

Now, put these facts together. She was the one asked to poll the Planning Board and the ZBA for last Tuesday's Public Hearing Meeting. She knew ahead of time the two ZBA members (who happen to be in favor of the towers, by the way) could not make the meeting that night. She clearly knew that would cause them to not have a quorum. She apparently didn't inform anyone of this ahead of time. She also made no attempt to tell the public the meeting would not be at the town hall, but rather at the high school. Hmmm...draw your own conclusions....

So, the saga continues. I have no idea when the next meeting is to be or any further info. However, if anyone knows why Kathy M. is so abruptly "gone", I'd be interested!

BTW, this week's editorial was signed, and not by me.

[mcdude]

.....ah....small town politics at its' best. Thanks, Winni.

[Rayhunt]

I cant stand the lack of consideration people have while talking on there cellies , never mind the poor driving that occurs .. However if having reception on a boat or island saves a life , then its worth it. Id really like to see statistics on how many lives were spared by cell phones in emergencies.
The towers IMHO are not such an eyesore.. we've had them as well as flashing red beacons for the air traffic on top of the hills around here for years...

[Weirs guy]

Originally Posted by Rayhunt

Id really like to see statistics on how many lives were spared by cell phones in emergencies.

I wonder if a better question would be "How many lives need to be spared to make the cell towers acceptable." (no flaming intended rayhunt, your quote just jogged my mind).

Hopefully in the near future the towers can be made so that no one objects to them being in their view, god knows I don't want to look at them either.

[Winni]

Originally Posted by Rayhunt

Id really like to see statistics on how many lives were spared by cell phones in emergencies.

If it were your child/ spouse/ sibling/ parent/ friend, etc. whose live was NOT spared, would it really matter what the statistics were? Isn't ONE enough?

[Skip]

Originally Posted by Winni

If it were your child/ spouse/ sibling/ parent/ friend, etc. whose live was NOT spared, would it really matter what the statistics were? Isn't ONE enough?

Err, how about how many people have lost their lives by taking uneccesary risks, feeling they were protected by having a cell phone in hand? Actually, how many people have lost their lives because someone was distracted by the cell phone in hand? Isn't even ONE too many?

[Rayhunt]

Originally Posted by Winni

If it were your child/ spouse/ sibling/ parent/ friend, etc. whose live was NOT spared, would it really matter what the statistics were? Isn't ONE enough?

Youve taken me out of context.. I am all for better reception in the area.
Yes one is enough , my point exactly

[mcdude]

Link to photo that Winni placed above...
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...1&d=1149557303

Winni:
Not sure if you've seen this week's Baysider. Here's what Russ Wilson had to say (in part) concerning this photo....

In reference to the courtesy photo that accompanied the June 22nd editorial sheet, a picture is worth a thousand words, this time just one "deception." The cell tower depicted here opposite exit 28 on Route 93N is not in a residential area threatening the health and well being of the residents. Secondly, its location is off and next to a major highway, not affecting any view shed or devaluing anyone's property. Finally, those supposed "landlines" referred to in the photo are in actuality high tension electric power transmission lines and not telephone landlines used for communication. Local government has no control over their placement. They are federally mandated and exempt from local zoning. Local governments do, however, have some control over the siting and appearance of cell towers. Alton Bay's scenic vistas need not be marred to provide adequate cell service!

More adequate cell phone coverage would be nice, however, I reiterate my position, like Russ Wilson I say

Alton Bay's scenic vistas need not be marred to provide adequate cell service!

[fatlazyless]

Here are two examples of utilities that help the local town at the expense of its' neighboring town. In February 2006, a new cell phone tower was installed in Ashland close to Rt 93 and exit 24. It's presence signifigantly impinges on the view of the Pemigiwasset River waterfront residents on the Bridgewater side of the river. The new cell tower is located within the Ashland waste water treatment faciity and does not really impinge on the view of any Ashland residents. The town of Ashland receives $1200./month rent or the new tower.

Similarly the Town of Bridgewater has a large woodchip powered electrical generating utility which sells electricity to the power grid. It is a huge property tax payer for Bridgewater and it abutts the Town of Plymouth.

Both locations for the new cell tower and the maybe 15 year old and very clean electrity power plant were picked for their financial benefits to their host town and to the detrimental view exposure of their neighboing town. You can see that New Hampshire is not really a state, but is a group of individual towns.

[Winni]

Originally Posted by mcdude

Link to photo that Winni placed above...
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...1&d=1149557303

Winni:
Not sure if you've seen this week's Baysider. Here's what Russ Wilson had to say (in part) concerning this photo....

More adequate cell phone coverage would be nice, however, I reiterate my position, like Russ Wilson I say

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?

[Winni]

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!)

[Gavia immer]

Originally Posted by Winni

Skipper, you are using ridiculous scare tactics, and I hope most people are realizing how really base that tactic is. You KNOW this is not what the proposed towers are to look like. They will only be 10 feet above the tree line, for cell relays only, and probably look like a fake pine tree.

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?

[JG1222]

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.

[Commodore]

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.

[John A. Birdsall]

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.

[Grant]

Originally Posted by John A. Birdsall

...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. ...

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.

[Winni]

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!

[mcdude]

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?

[GWC...]

Originally Posted by mcdude

Looks like some kind of tower has been erected. Not sure if it is a cell phone tower or not. Has anyone noticed it from the lake?

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

[mcdude]

Letter to the Editor of The Baysider

Provisions of Ordinance 603 must be revisited

To the Editor:

Over the past several months, the Town of Alton has been confronted with a troublesome, contentious issue over granting a variance to a Zoning Regulation that governs installation of Cell Phone Towers. A Cell Tower Operator, who earlier sought permission to erect new towers in Wolfeboro, was rejected by their town's Planning Board and ZBA. They then turned to Alton and have made application to locate two towers in town on Miramichie Hill in the Lakeshore Residential Zone and at the old campgrounds off Robert's Cove Road.

The issue is still under consideration by Alton's ZBA and presumably, a ruling will be forthcoming in the short term. Originally, the Applicant submitted his request in late 2005 for a variance in the "use" and "area" provisions of the prevailing Zoning Ordinance 270, which limited locating cell towers to only four outlying overlay districts in town, all in the Rural Zone.

In March 2006, the Alton voters, at the urging of the Planning Board, were presented with a warrant article recommending a new Ordinance 603 to supersede Ordinance 270 that had been in effect from 1999 through 2005. The new Ordinance that was passed by the voters, allows permitting of towers virtually anywhere in town but limited to no more than 10 feet above the tree line. With the location regulation no longer a hindrance as to where a tower could be erected, the Applicant immediately revised his application to pursue a single variance to install 120-foot towers in the above-mentioned locations.

In the March 2006 election, the article to be voted on had as a rationale the following: "The purpose of this new ordinance is to improve wireless service in the area and provide alternatives to tall towers with less visual impact upon the town." Limiting the height of the towers is an attractive provision of the new regulation, however, the voters were unaware that the devil was in the details of the proposed new ordinance.

Regrettably the Planning Board's warrant article did not identify a major change in the location provision of the ordinance that would allow towers to be erected in any district of the town including all four Residential Zones. The Lakeshore Residential Zone is now subject to having towers erected up to within fifty (50) feet of public waters including Lake Winnipesaukee. Sadly, proponents of the new measure were outside the voting station urging people to vote for the new ordinance as an improvement over the predecessor Ordinance 270. Without benefit of knowing the implications of the significant revision to the location provisions, some voters believe they were duped into supporting a flawed ordinance that now allows possible encroachment of these towers into the residential areas. Moreover, there were many specific protective provisions in the old Ordinance 270 that were eliminated. They included preserving hilltop appearance and skyline views of traditional areas of the town as well as protecting abutting property values.

Lake Winnipesaukee is unquestionably one of the premier lakes in New England. It offers recreation for the townspeople and it is a major attraction to visitors who enjoy boating and other activities. It is home to a few remaining summer camps for youngsters and vacation facilities for many NH and out-of-state people who summer here each year. The lake and the surrounding areas retain their pristine unspoiled beauty for all to enjoy, thanks to the efforts of town officials who, in past years, have protected the lake by controlling developments in the lakeshore area.

Winnipesaukee is also a boon to the local economy with multiple marinas, motels and rental cottages as well as numerous restaurants and other businesses that benefit from the Lake's popularity. It unmistakably is Alton's treasure when it comes to supporting the Town. Of the town's total collection of nearly $16 million in property taxes, approximately $12 million comes from lake properties. It is the tax base for the town that generates the bulk of the funds for schools, the municipal budget and all other town services. In every sense, it is Alton's greatest resource.

Now we have on the books a Zoning Ordinance that overrides all other residential regulations. If the variance currently under consideration is approved, and should this new ordinance remain intact, it would establish a terrible precedent of allowing commercial enterprises into the Lakeshore Zone and potentially, it could ruin the scenic beauty of the Lake. Alton has a huge landmass, one of the largest in the state, and there are numerous sites in the outlying rural zone where these towers could be located and offer improved cell phone service without disturbing the Town.

Concerned with this prospective development, the writer conferred with many people in town and especially those who wish to protect our Lake. There is a strong sentiment that certain provisions of the new Ordinance 603 must be revisited and revised to void repeat attempts to locate cell towers in or around residential areas and eliminate the threat to the beauty of Winnipesaukee. Who in their right mind wants to see towers popping up around the lake with their flashing lights disturbing the surrounding environment?

The writer met with the Planning Board to urge the planners to consider changes to the new Ordinance 603. We suggested that the protective and preservation provisions of the old ordinance be reinstated and that cell towers only be permitted in the rural parts of town away from the residential areas. Unfortunately, the Planning Board declined to take any action.

The next meeting was with the Board of Selectmen, who were not enthusiastic about addressing the issue and advised that the Planning Board had unilateral authority to handle zoning issues, and that the selectmen were not empowered to get involved. We subsequently learned through the New Hampshire Municipal Association that, in fact, under state law the selectmen were privileged to get involved and could initiate action leading to reconsideration of certain provisions of the new ordinance.

With this information, we submitted a letter on July 17, setting forth proposed changes to amend the new ordinance, together with a specific request that the selectmen move forward with the Planning Board to schedule a public hearing and put before the voters in March 2007, a warrant article calling for an Amendment to Ordinance 603. At another meeting with the selectmen on August 7, they again elected not to take up the issue and instead, suggested that under state law, we could petition the Town to allow a warrant article to be put before the voters next March.

The requisite number of registered voter signatures was obtained and the petition was submitted on August 14. However, the Town advised that such a petition cannot be legally accepted any earlier than 120 days in advance of the election, thus the petition must be resubmitted in early November. Regrettably, most of the seasonal taxpayers who are concerned with this issue will not be able to attend the public hearing sometime in the winter months and registered voters who go out of state for a few months will possibly not be able to participate in any of the proceedings. Any surprise in how Alton handles its affairs?

As matters stand, we will resubmit the petition in the fall and expect the Town will honor the request for this ballot initiative. Meanwhile the ruling on the current application will be the subject of a hearing scheduled for Sept. 12 at 6:30 p.m. Interested parties are encouraged to attend and if so inclined, participate in the public input portion of the meting. Otherwise for those people who are concerned about this issue, but do go away, write a letter to the Planning Board and arrange for your absentee ballots.

Alden L. Norman

Alton Bay

Alden L. Norman
Alton Bay
August 30, 2006

[GWC...]

Originally Posted by mcdude

Letter to the Editor of The Baysider
The new Ordinance that was passed by the voters

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

Originally Posted by mcdude

Letter to the Editor of The Baysider
The lake and the surrounding areas retain their pristine unspoiled beauty for all to enjoy, thanks to the efforts of town officials who, in past years, have protected the lake by controlling developments in the lakeshore area.

So, Cell towers are spoilers and McMansions are not?

[John A. Birdsall]

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.

[Mee-n-Mac]

Originally Posted by John A. Birdsall

{snip} I noticed lately that waving a paddle does not work anymore.

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.

[RLW]

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.

[upthesaukee]

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!!!

[DNH]

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.

[mcdude]

Quotes from "The Baysider"

The Planning Board and Zoning Board of Adjustment combined on the night of Sept. 12 to jointly hear the site plan and area variances necessary to construct the two communications facilities, one at 486 East Side Drive (Route 28A), and the other at 1439 Wolfeboro Highway (Route 28).

Prior to that meeting, the applicant will perform a balloon test at the proposed site, scheduled for Saturday, Sept. 30, beginning at 9 a.m. Board members will meet at Town Hall at 8:30 a.m. that morning, to distribute lists of various vantage points from which to observe the balloons.

One of the 18 properties listed in the PowerPoint presentation was shown to belong to David and Marilyn Slade, and Delaney said they weren't interested in doing business with Industrial Communications.

But the Slades were in the audience, and David Slade testified that he had never been contacted by the company. The Slade property abuts the proposed facility on East Side Drive.

Slade questioned that the company didn't perform due diligence in fully exploring all its options, and said the company should use several smaller facilities to provide coverage without affecting view sheds

another indication of the questionable practices of Industrial Communications?

Donald Cody, director of operations for Industrial Communications, described the monopole towers as being five feet wide at the base, and tapering to 18 inches wide at the top, so, he suggested, when the board and public view the balloon test, which will use a four-foot wide balloon, he asked that they keep in mind that the tower won't be that wide.

But resident Russ Wilson said that was misleading. Yes, the tower itself might be only 18 inches wide, but it will be festooned with communications equipment. "Those antennae stick out from the tower about six feet," in three directions, forming a triangle about 12 feet wide, "so when you have a four-foot wide balloon, they're much smaller."

Photo of a recent balloon test conducted on Lake Wentworth in Wolfeboro. Photo by NomdePlume

[Skipper of the Sea Que]

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.

---------

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.

[Merrymeeting]

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?

[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.

[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.......