Barton Mountain Cell Tower - What's New - "Monuments of Gullibility" - NVDA Approves Ridgeline Development For Northeast Kingdom - Ugly To Uglier
Barton Mountain Alliance | Engineer's Addendum - October 2006 | Engineer's Report - March 2005 | Six Line-Of-Sight Photos In View Of Burton Hill Silo | Barton Cell Tower Opposition Letters - The Public Speaks Out - Voices From The Kingdom | Barton Cell Tower Choices: Burton Hill Farm Silo Or Verizon Base Station, A Basis For Multiple Towers | Verizon Cell Tower Opposition "No Cell Tower On Barton Mountain" By John Klar | 2 Slide Shows | Propagation Map | Cell Tower Techo-Blight and Alternatives To Tower Co-location | History Of Dispute (1) | History Of Dispute (2) "Monuments of Guilibilty" | 7 Special Views Of Barton Mountain | Letter To Act 250

 


Monuments of Guillibility

The Northeastern Vermont Development Association's (NVDA) made known that it tacitly approves ridgeline development for 400 foot wind towers throughout the Northeast Kingdom at a Public Hearing on Thursday, November 3, 2005 in Newport, Vermont.

The November 7, 2005 edition of the "Newport Daily Express" reported "a barrage of criticism" and an "air of aggressiveness" as opponents took turns pointing out why ridgeline development should not be implemented in the Kingdom.  Opponents showed a profound incredulity that planners could look on the destruction of the Kingdom's ridgelines as beneficial. "Once we have given away the ridgelines, we will never have them back."  Such towers will be "monuments to our gullibility." 

The NVDA also approves Verizon's cell tower on Barton Mountain's ridgelines knowing that Barton Village businesses, Orleans Village businesses, most Route 5 businesses, and much of I-91 will not receive cell service from this site.  Now why would that be?  November 3, 2005

 

 

 

Ugly To Uglier

 

Verizon Worsens Tower Design From Fake Tree To Fake Fire Tower

 

Verizon worsens tower design from an 84 foot huge fake tree to an 81 foot three-sided Plexiglas & steel latticework fake fire tower.  The new design is far more industrial and far less natural than the fake tree.  Approval of this material change to the tower design, the installation of additional towers, or future variances for microwave dishes are left to the discretion of a four to five member Zoning Board.  Even the Selectboard has no control over these decisions.

Historic Preservation Rejects Stealth Tree and Fire Tower Designs in Old Stone House Viewshed, But Would Not Object To An Industrial Design
 The State of Vermont's Division of Historic Preservation has rejected both the fake tree and the fake fire tower as overly intrusive to their viewshed. Unfortunately, the Division believes one industrial tower would not significantly harm the historic resources of the Old Stone House properties.  This finding is disappointing.  It does not look as if secondary land use consequences were considered.  If neither the fake tree nor the fake fire tower is acceptible to Historic Preservation, how could multiple towers be acceptible to them?  An FM tower application follows the Verizon application.  If these towers are approved, what sort of towers will be next? Please see photo of co-location in Peterborough, N.H. on Alternatives page. The construction of either a colossal fake tree or an even uglier fake fire tower, with a base station, power lines, and improved road will constitute a significant adverse impact on the town’s scenic views, its nearby historic properties, and state lands. With its 2235 foot elevation, Barton Mountain’s unspoiled beauty is an inescapable visual focal point for many miles and thousands of people.  This highest point in the town should not be marred for generations of Vermonters and tourists.

The proposed FM radio tower application like that of Verizon, claims no undue adverse impact. This kind of industrial development does not belong in a nearly pristine aesthetic wilderness area. These applications do not conform to the Town Plan since they change the character of the area, do not protect residential property value and use, and will unleash a foothold for more development in an area designated as remote land, which should have very little development.        

 

Vermont is tied for sixth place on a list of 115 most desirable destinations, and cultural heritage tourism is one of the ways Vermont is growing its economy.  If a cell tower is approved on this site, the viewshed of the Old Stone House is only one of the many places that will be affected and subject to change.  See Page 5:  Verizon's Own Propagation Map of "No Service" Areas. 

Mr. Roger Boyell, one of the nation's most respected radio-frequency engineers performed an analysis of coverage using Verizon's own data submitted for the project.  Mr. Boyell has had extensive training in electrical engineering, is a senior member of the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers, and has 30 years experience in the defense and aerospace industry.  His report shows up a major flaw in the Verizon application.  Effectively there will be no cell service provided to Barton Village, Orleans Village, or businesses on Route 5 between the two, if Verizon installs a cell tower on the top of Barton Mountain.  What will be provided is patchy coverage to I-91.  Mr. Boyell also points out alternative sites where town population centers, businesses, and routes I-91 and 5 will be provided with cell service equal or better than that provided by the Barton Mountain site. The significant gap in cell coverage is not on Barton Mountain where Unicel and Verizon already have coverage, but in the valley below.

The cellular industry is changing: huge towers are no longer necessary.   Many towns in California will not allow towers over 50 feet; in others only suitcase and dictionary-sized units are accepted.

See:  www.necellularsites.net for what is happening to the countryside of New England.  Techno-blight is more often the rule rather than the exception.  Neither tall towers or co-location are desireable anymore.  Sites where towers are colocated are clearly becoming eyesores and industrial sites. See photos of successful wireless siting on the page 6. 

Vermont Telecommunications Plan, September 2004

http://publicservice.vermont.gov/pub/state-plans-telecom.html 

  • Vermont's Telecommunications Plan encourages wireless telecommunications delivery on utility poles
  • Planners state that mobile wireless services should be available continuously along Vermont's principle numbered interstate, U.S. and state highways, and in all significant concentrations of population. 
  • Vermont should support emerging packet-data services commonly found around the country, as well as voice.
  • Pole attachers should contributed fairly to the costs of jointly used facilities, but poles should not be a source of extraordinary revenue or a means of slowing market entry. 
  • Vermont should facilitate and encourage the use of existing facilities for siting antennas. 
  • Service providers should use pre-existing structures where available for deployment of antennas. 
  • Access for telecommunications projects to highway ROWs where space and safety requirements permits is in the public interest and encouraged when facilities provide service to the public in Vermont. 
  • As higher-frequency wireless services like PCS service and broadband wireless Internet require more sites in Vermont located closer to gether, use of utility poles and electric transmission towers may more often be a good solution."