FIND AN ALTERNATIVE LOCATION FOR CHEQTEL TOWER
  • Petitioned George Brandt

This petition was delivered to:

George Brandt
Mike McGuiness
Ralph Meyer
John Cerman
TSL BOARD
Prudence Ross
David Carter
Brian Hucker

FIND AN ALTERNATIVE LOCATION FOR CHEQTEL TOWER

    1. Petition by

      Friends of the Quiet Lakes

The proposed tower is a 300 foot lighted tower to be located near Teal and Lost Land Lakes.

The tower will be clearly visible to property owners around both lakes. If constructed, the tower will devalue property, threaten migratory birds (eagles, loons, etc...) other wildlife, the evironment and erode the quality of these two pristine lakes.

While a tower is needed in the area, this particular location is unacceptable to a large number of land owners on both lakes. Other locations have been identified by local citizens, but neither Cheqtel or the Town has shown any effort to entertain another site.

Consider the views of many citizens and land owners in the area and find an alternative location.

Recent signatures

    News

    1. Reached 100 signatures

    Supporters

    Reasons for signing

    • Elizabeth Horvitz MINNEAPOLIS, MN
      • over 2 years ago

      Let's protect the beauty of the north woods. Residents and visitors alike will be negatively affected by a poor decision. And while we're voicing concern, what about the unsightly bill boards that cropping up along the scenic Hwy 77 in the township? This is also of great concern to those of us who respect and value the natural beauty of the area. Thank you.

      REPORT THIS COMMENT:
    • ROBERT BOOK NAPERVILLE, IL
      • over 2 years ago

      Because i dont want to look at blinking lites every nite from our deck. we moved to teal lake because of its beauty. we have built a beautiful home and the tower will not only ruin our view,but lower our home valves,which will then result in lower taxes

      and less funds to the township. there is other

      siters available which will meet the standards

      of the township. they need to be reviewed as required by law.

      REPORT THIS COMMENT:
    • Terry Frick HAYWARD, WI
      • over 2 years ago

      I have found that the Town of Spider Lake governance to be leaders in their vision for our aera and was very encouraged when the Comprehensive Land Use Plan came into being. I believed that our exceptional legacy would be safely passed on to the next generation. While as a physician I am in favor of having cell phone coverage along the Highway 77 corridor, I am also aware it can be done more effectively and less obtrusively. In addition to this I know that frequencies have already been assigned for satellite direct cellphones and that the matter is before the FCC for approval. Once this tower is in place and obsolete, who will pay to remove it?

      REPORT THIS COMMENT:
    • Lynn Treadwell WEST ST PAUL, MN
      • over 2 years ago

      This tower will ruin the pristine landscape of the Quiet Lakes. Alternative locations should be considered.

      REPORT THIS COMMENT:
    • John Trombello DALLAS, TX
      • over 2 years ago

      Subsequent to the Town’s approval last summer of the initial Cheqtel CUP application, Sawyer County approved a cell tower ordinance which requires a tower facility to be setback 500 feet from the adjoining properties. Although the Town may not be bound by the County’s ordinance, it should apply the same or greater setback requirement particularly due to the fact that this site is located on Hwy. 77. Although towers are typically designed to collapse, not fall, it would be prudent for the Town to plan for a fall of the tower. Since the center of the tower is only 320+/- feet from Hwy. 77 and the tower height is 320 feet, the Town should plan for the possibility that the tower would fall in the direction of the Hwy. causing serious injury, death, and/or closure of the Hwy. In the interest of public safety, the prudent action would be to implement the County’s setback of 500 feet or a greater distance due to the location on the Hwy. The proposed tower’s setbacks fall well below the 500 foot minimum. If the Town approves this site with its minimal setbacks, it will be adopting a more lenient standard than the County’s and would be setting a dangerous precedent for future cell tower applications. There is no compelling reason why the Town should expose itself to potential lawsuits arising from the fall of this tower when the site simply does not comply with prudent setback requirements. In conjunction with the comments made in the other posts on this site, the tower application should be denied.

      REPORT THIS COMMENT:

    Develop your own tools to win.

    Use the Change.org API to develop your own organizing tools. Find out how to get started.