Otisfield supports cell tower decision

OTISFIELD — The planning board met Tuesday night to lay down the facts and cite the law it used in its January 17 approval for construction of a 180-foot telecommunications tower on Scribner Hill.

The purpose of the meeting was to satisfy a mandate by Oxford County Superior Court Justice Robert Clifford that required the board to support its decision to approve the construction of a U.S. Cellular tower.

The meeting took place at the Community Hall and lasted for about three hours. 

Attorney Philip Saucier of Portland law firm Bernstein Shur represented the town at the meeting. 

After an in-depth review of the "findings of fact" Tuesday, a motion was made by planning board member Beth Damon to affirm the planning board's January 17 decision and  formally adopt the findings listed during the meeting. 

The findings will be sent to Superior Court for review by the judge. 

During the meeting, the board listed four conditions contained in the January 17 permit, including that U.S. Cellular submit a design for a gate at the bottom of the road to prevent people from accessing the tower.

The permit also requires U.S. Cellular to submit a $25,000 bond to the town to cover the cost of removing the tower if the company abandons it and that generator testing be done only Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m.

The construction of the tower would also accommodate space for other cellular companies and the Otisfield Fire Department's communications equipment. 

About 30 residents attended Tuesday's meeting – many of whom oppose a cell tower. They believe the construction of a tower would have a negative visual impact and nearby residents would suffer a loss of property values. 

Additionally, the group of residents who call themselves "Friends of Scribner Hill" said the tower would cause long-term health effects because the tower would be erected in a dense residential area less than 200 feet from existing homes.

On July 9, the group and individual plaintiffs James Gregory, Kristin Roy, Joseph Brown and John Poto attempted to have the court remand the permit approval back to the planning board for another full hearing – the belief was that the planning board failed to comply with two sections of the town's Wireless Telecommunication Siting Ordinance. 

They also contended that some abutters were not notified of hearings and, therefore, had no input during the permit application process. 

Though the planning board was given the right by a judge to hear additional evidence from abutters, it chose not to during Tuesday's meeting. 

After the meeting adjourned, a landowner on Scribner Hill, who wished to remain anonymous, said that she, along with 80 percent of people in town, bought property in Otisfield because she appreciated the rural quality of life it offered. 

"I chose to live here because it's beautiful," she said. "It's just hard because I put my whole life savings into my house. For the last few years, I've been renovating ... and now there's going to be a cell phone tower right there." 

Now that the planning board has finished fact-finding, it will ask the judge to rule on its thoroughness of the process to prevent the plaintiffs from filing another lawsuit.