Cell Phone Towers Coming to Alton Bay

[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.