Wednesday, October 5, 2011

The AT&T cell tower resistance continues...


Stoddard now dealing with lawsuit

Print
Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size
Posted: Sunday, October 2, 2011 9:00 am | Updated: 8:26 am, Sun Oct 2, 2011.
STODDARD — With a federal lawsuit hanging over its head, the town’s zoning board is poised to resume operation after a spate of resignations that left it out of commission back in July.
That likely means once again taking up a proposal to construct a cellphone tower on Melville Hill, with a board that features three new
members.
*
“I think it’s important for the town, but I’m not feeling anxious about it at all,” Angela M. Nicoletti, a new board member, said of the controversial application from AT&T. “We’ll proceed in an orderly fashion and eventually it’ll be resolved.”
The resignations — by three of the five board members and all of the alternate members — came a day after the board voted in July to reconsider the application, and left the board without a quorum.
On Aug. 8, AT&T filed a complaint in U.S. District Court in Concord, claiming that resignation-induced delays constitute a “failure to act,” and that the board had exceeded the time limit set by federal law to consider the proposal.
In fact, the board had voted 3-2 on May 25 to allow a 130-foot tower, but decided to reconsider after receiving petitions from residents.
AT&T is asking the court in its lawsuit to allow construction under the terms the board approved in May.
Reconsidering the application means starting from a clean slate. Interviewed in June, some outgoing board members cited the prospect of going through that lengthy process again as a reason for stepping down.
The selectmen didn’t turn away any applicants for positions on the board, Arnold R. Stymest, selectman chairman, said.
Fred and Ruth Ward, who voted against AT&T’s application in July, are still on the panel.
They are joined now by Nicoletti, Helen Wheeler and Dennis Pellegrino as regular members and Peter Athearn and Paul Krampfert as alternates.
The new board had its first organizational meeting Friday.
The town has hired Jeffrey C. Spear, an attorney with the Concord firm Orr and Reno, to represent it in the lawsuit brought by AT&T.
On Tuesday, Spear filed a motion to dismiss AT&T’s suit, arguing that the board had ruled on the application within the legal time limit, and that that limit does not apply to post-decision rehearings and appeals.
It is unclear what the board should do about the AT&T application now that it is ready to resume hearing applications for zoning variances .
“The question here — which is a legal question — is do we start a rehearing while this thing is grinding its way through court,” Fred Ward said.
Meanwhile, the new members will cut their teeth on other petitions for variances that have accumulated over the past two months.
The board, which has not yet chosen a chairperson, has scheduled its first regular meeting for Oct. 20.
Sarah Trefethen can be reached at 352-1234, extension 1439, or strefethen@keenesentinel.com.

Comments:
  • Response by Nick Nicoletti of Munsonville, NH (Granite Lake resident) to the comment below his:

    Mr. Mayor, first I want to inform you as one of the people who petitioned the ZBA to reconsider its initial decision in favor of AT&T that the so-called Citizen's Alliance had nothing to do with me or any other petitioner. 
    Second, it was the ZBA's legal counsel, who had given the ZBA the wrong legal advice on which the ZBA initially relied, who was the cause of the ZBA's decision to reverse its grant and reconsider its decision in favor of AT&T, of AT&T lawsuit and the Town's and of the ZBA's need to respond. In other words the petitioners would have gone to court against AT&T and the ZBA based on its initial decison and the petitioners would have won, and at about the same cost to the ZBA as will be in the case brought by AT&T. Blame ZBA counsel for the court proceeding!


    Mayorofstoddard
     
    posted at 8:24 pm on Sun, Oct 2, 2011.

    mayorofstoddardPosts: 14
    This article doesn't even scratch the surface of just how badly this matter was handled by the Chair and Members of the Board. Taxpayers of Stoddard, just take the time to read the minutes of the Cell Tower related meetings, and you will see what I mean. In addition to the MASSIVE Tax Increase we are already facing in the December Tax Bills, now we have this unplanned Legal Expense, that will easily run into the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS.
    Let's hear it for the Stoddard Citizen's Alliance and their fringe members who are still doing their best to "save" the town. Who is going to save us from them?
    I think it's high time for a Petition Article in the Spring to DO AWAY with Zoning in the Town of Stoddard.
  • Community Member posted at 7:50 pm on Sun, Oct 2, 2011.

    Community MemberPosts: 3
    Furthermore, if I lived in Stoddard, I would gladly rent out my property for a cell tower. It's the right thing to do.
  • Community Member posted at 7:49 pm on Sun, Oct 2, 2011.

    Community MemberPosts: 3
    Really? New Hampshire really needs to catch up with the 21st century. I agree, cell towers do ruin the landscape we have all grown to love. However, wouldn't you feel safer knowing you have cell service on Route 9 if you were ever stranded in the middle of the night...especially knowing there are no street lights?? It is a little ridiculous that cell service is so "spotty" in New Hampshire. It's not a matter of hardship. AT&T could probably care less if it isn't approved - they will do just fine in other markets.
  • HelloThere posted at 10:42 am on Sun, Oct 2, 2011.

    HelloTherePosts: 11
    This AT&T tower is not some type of hardship on AT&T if it is not approved. And that to me is the pivotal point. Is there a hardshit? NO! And the more we allow federal pre-emptive powers to supersed that of local governments, the more our rural way of life will be encroached on. Cell towers are destroying the views of NH. On every dang mountain there is now an ugly tower ruining the pristine mountain views. It sucks. I see absolutely no pressing need for another cell tower towering in the sky reminding us everyday that our way of life is being destroyed by big corporations and fed govt intrusion. The value of asthetics cannot be underscored over the corporate interests of cell providers. NH rural residents need to fight for what matters most to them- the quality of life we pay dearly for by way of property taxes.

No comments:

Post a Comment