The Eagle-Tribune: Neighbors, city officials fight cell tower in Methuen
qazxsw21
· 2 months ago
"We have 100 percent coverage through Verizon in the city of Methuen," Paine said
its not like Verizon is asking to put a tower there goon
although t-mobile is terrible your basically restricting trade by not allowing a competitor to have good cell service for its customers
basically with that statement your making your pressing your citizens to get Verizon....are they paying you to say this
zz28
· 2 months ago
"basically with that statement your making your pressing your citizens to get Verizon....are they paying you to say this"
Careful there qaz, unless of course you have the facts to back that accusation.
qazxsw21
· 2 months ago
so then why would he HAVE to say verizon he could have said another carrier has 100% coverage but then again what does it matter that any other carrier has 100% coverage when the issue at hand is Tmobile
seems like favoritism to me to 1 company while dogging another
maybe check the campaign contributions?
happymadison
· 2 months ago
Paine is a resident of Maplewood and he is the one who made the statement about Verizon coverage not the mayor.
MR FOOT FROM METHUEN
· 2 months ago
aH ha ha ha!!
What a goon that person who staetd about the 100% coverage with Verizon.
HA HA HA HA
zz28
· 2 months ago
The City of Methuen needs to obtain a technical justification from T-Mobile for the use of this site before they can grant or deny their application.
In doing that, they need to ask the right technical questions. For example, what area of their system are they trying to improve coverage? Considering the site is about 2500-3000 feet (line of sight) from RT. 93 and about 4000 feet from 213, the site has likely been chosen to bolster coverage along these commuting routes.
Why ask these questions? Because aside from being an eye sore, the amount of RF exposure from a cell antenna site is what affects safety and the amount of exposure depends on the installation: how high the antenna is, the type of antenna and where it is pointed and the RF power level.
Very few cell antennas radiate the majority of their signal straight down into the neighborhood, so the risk is far lower than most people assume it to be.
The city should hire an RF Engineering consultant to get the real facts - not just relying on T-Mobile's word but also not making a decision based on the resident's understanding of the problem.
99% of us are not RF Engineers so an expert is required. ------------------------------------
TheRifleman
· 2 months ago
none of what you say is true. This has NOTHING to do with "RF" anything. Check the laws. The only way a municipality can stop cell towers is with zoning restrictions.
Read Methuen's recent ordinance on cell towers (Wireless Communications Facilities - WCF) . You'll see it clearly says "no towers in a residential area". This is NOT a residential area.
The other restrictions that may be applicable are
i) The minimum distance from the base of every Major WCF to any property line or road shall be equal to the height of the tower plus fifty (50) feet including any antennas or other appurtenances.
ii) The minimum distance from the base of every Major WCF shall be at least 500 feet from any residence, historic district, school, playground or recreation center, medical facility or nursing home.
If these conditions are not met, Methuen can deny the application.
trippi3333
· 2 months ago
every one wants service but no one want a tower.
rma0100
· 2 months ago
There is absolutely no evidence that cell signals cause ANY health problems whatsoever. None!
If radio waves were visible and black it would be dark all the time.
You people simply opose change.
TheRifleman
· 2 months ago
According to FEDERAL LAW, cities cannot block cell towers from being built based on supposed MEDICAL or HEALTH RISKS. The reason is that the federal government and its experts have already determined that there is ZERO health risk to residents from cell towers. The only danger is if you walk/stand directly in front of and within ~10-15ft of an antenna while it is transmitting. No one is going to do that unless they climb up a pole.
There is already a city ordinance on cell towers. If this one meets the ordinance, it's going up. Think the council approved it last night....
3) Special Permit Granting Authority: a) The Methuen Community Development Board shall be the Special Permit Granting Authority for any Major WCF.
WCFs are prohibited in all residential districts except that WCFs may be located: i) in the Rural Residential Zone; ii) on municipally owned land, a water tank, or an existing WCF or replacement of such facility pursuant to this section; iii) on a utility transmission tower only if installation on any such utility transmission tower does not extend greater than five (5) feet above the utility transmission tower;
Is this site behind the Quick Stop Variety? If so, it looks as though it's zoned as BN-Neighborhood Business. So you can't stop it based on zoning.
Perhaps T-Mobile can find an existing structure nearby that can be used to still get RF coverage without a monopole. If not, let them put it up. Honestly, it's not going to impact prop values.
seealotofthings2
· 2 months ago
Everyone loves their cell phones but no one wants the things needed to make them work located near them.
Kato Capone
· 2 months ago
Would you like one in your backyard?
Its_All_Bull
· 2 months ago
I am glad that Mr. Henrick is not resigning he is a good man. If you want to see what is really going on in Methuen check out this Blog: http://methuenpolicesecrets.blogspot.com
zz28
· 2 months ago
Rifleman said:
"none of what you say is true. This has NOTHING to do with "RF" anything. Check the laws."
Your missing the point. I wasn't debating town zoning laws. Mark Paine, a resident of Maplewood Ave is quoted having 2 valid concerns which I did address:
"Paine said he fears the tower could cause health problems for neighbors and property values to drop."
Health problems and a drop in property value.
Understanding the RF exposure limits based on T-Mobile's intended installation is the only way to confirm what the actual risk is. Relying on a Google search of cell phone health risks is not good enough.
About the 2009 revision being considered: have you ever heard of a waiver?
You may also want to try actually reading the proposed revision you pointed out for Wireless Communication Facilities:
Item 19 states:
Waivers from these regulations:
a) If an applicant proves that the height limitations or setbacks provided for existing structures or for new construction prohibit the provision of Personal Wireless Service the Board may consider a waiver.
b) If an applicant can demonstrate that the absence of allowable locations in residential districts results in an effective prohibition of wireless services, the Board may consider a waiver of location to allow for such installations provided that, to the extent possible these are concealed in existing buildings or structures (i.e., steeples, flag poles, light poles or transmission poles).
c) The Board may hire its own Radio Frequency Engineer, at the expense of the applicant to review the applicant’s findings supporting their request for a waiver under this subsection of the ordinance.
The cell tower installation in Methuen at 495 and 213 owned by Sprint PCS is a good test for this proposed revision. Thetower is located 180 feet behind the Summit apartment complex and about 180 behind the nearest home on Maple Ridge Road.
That's in stark contrast to the revision which requires a WCF to be 500 feet from any residence.
All Comments
its not like Verizon is asking to put a tower there goon
although t-mobile is terrible
your basically restricting trade by not allowing a competitor to have good cell service for its customers
basically with that statement your making your pressing your citizens to get Verizon....are they paying you to say this
Careful there qaz, unless of course you have the facts to back that accusation.
he could have said
another carrier has 100% coverage
but then again what does it matter that any other carrier has 100% coverage when the issue at hand is Tmobile
seems like favoritism to me to 1 company
while dogging another
maybe check the campaign contributions?
What a goon that person who staetd about the 100% coverage with Verizon.
HA HA HA HA
In doing that, they need to ask the right technical questions. For example, what area of their system are they trying to improve coverage? Considering the site is about 2500-3000 feet (line of sight) from RT. 93 and about 4000 feet from 213, the site has likely been chosen to bolster coverage along these commuting routes.
Why ask these questions? Because aside from being an eye sore, the amount of RF exposure from a cell antenna site is what affects safety and the amount of exposure depends on the installation: how high the antenna is, the type of antenna and where it is pointed and the RF power level.
Very few cell antennas radiate the majority of their signal straight down into the neighborhood, so the risk is far lower than most people assume it to be.
The city should hire an RF Engineering consultant to get the real facts - not just relying on T-Mobile's word but also not making a decision based on the resident's understanding of the problem.
99% of us are not RF Engineers so an expert is required.
------------------------------------
Read Methuen's recent ordinance on cell towers (Wireless Communications Facilities - WCF) . You'll see it clearly says "no towers in a residential area". This is NOT a residential area.
The other restrictions that may be applicable are
i) The minimum distance from the base of every Major WCF to any property line or road shall be equal to the height of the tower plus fifty (50) feet including any antennas or other appurtenances.
ii) The minimum distance from the base of every Major WCF shall be at least 500 feet from any residence, historic district, school, playground or recreation center, medical facility or nursing home.
If these conditions are not met, Methuen can deny the application.
If radio waves were visible and black it would be dark all the time.
You people simply opose change.
There is already a city ordinance on cell towers. If this one meets the ordinance, it's going up. Think the council approved it last night....
http://www.ci.methuen.ma.us/Documents/Resolutio...
3) Special Permit Granting Authority:
a) The Methuen Community Development Board shall be the Special Permit Granting Authority for any Major WCF.
WCFs are prohibited in all residential districts except that WCFs may be located:
i) in the Rural Residential Zone;
ii) on municipally owned land, a water tank, or an existing WCF or replacement of such facility pursuant to this section;
iii) on a utility transmission tower only if installation on any such utility transmission tower does not extend greater than five (5) feet above the utility transmission tower;
Is this site behind the Quick Stop Variety? If so, it looks as though it's zoned as BN-Neighborhood Business. So you can't stop it based on zoning.
Perhaps T-Mobile can find an existing structure nearby that can be used to still get RF coverage without a monopole. If not, let them put it up. Honestly, it's not going to impact prop values.
http://methuenpolicesecrets.blogspot.com
"none of what you say is true. This has NOTHING to do with "RF" anything. Check the laws."
Your missing the point. I wasn't debating town zoning laws. Mark Paine, a resident of Maplewood Ave is quoted having 2 valid concerns which I did address:
"Paine said he fears the tower could cause health problems for neighbors and property values to drop."
Health problems and a drop in property value.
Understanding the RF exposure limits based on T-Mobile's intended installation is the only way to confirm what the actual risk is. Relying on a Google search of cell phone health risks is not good enough.
About the 2009 revision being considered: have you ever heard of a waiver?
You may also want to try actually reading the proposed revision you pointed out for Wireless Communication Facilities:
Item 19 states:
Waivers from these regulations:
a) If an applicant proves that the height limitations or setbacks provided for existing structures or for new construction prohibit the provision of Personal Wireless Service the Board may consider a waiver.
b) If an applicant can demonstrate that the absence of allowable locations in residential districts results in an effective prohibition of wireless services, the Board may consider a waiver of location to allow for such installations provided that, to the extent possible these are concealed in existing buildings or structures (i.e., steeples, flag poles, light poles or transmission poles).
c) The Board may hire its own Radio Frequency Engineer, at the expense of the applicant to review the applicant’s findings supporting their request for a waiver under this subsection of the ordinance.
The cell tower installation in Methuen at 495 and 213 owned by Sprint PCS is a good test for this proposed revision. Thetower is located 180 feet behind the Summit apartment complex and about 180 behind the nearest home on Maple Ridge Road.
That's in stark contrast to the revision which requires a WCF to be 500 feet from any residence.