OTISFIELD, Maine — As the Planning Board prepares to approve its court-ordered findings of fact document on Tuesday in an attempt to move ahead with the U.S. Cellular cell tower project on Scribner Hill Road, at least one family said they may be moving.
Cathy Dixon and her partner, Joe Brown, said that if the project is completed, when they sit on their back porch they will be staring at more than 60 feet of galvanized steel — the top of the proposed U.S. Cellular communication tower — instead of watching the tall pines sway in the wind.
“We’ve contacted a real estate agent. We’re very much thinking about selling,” Dixon said. She and Brown built their dream retirement home on Scribner Hill nine years ago.
The Cape-style house and landscaped gardens and stone fences at 401 Scribner Hill Road may now sit in the shadow of the 180-foot tower.
Dixon said the proposed tower will be sited only 260 feet from her garage. “It will look like it’s on top of our garage, 180 feet high,” she said. “We will see it all the time.”
It is a scenario that others on Scribner Hill and the surrounding area fear. Many on the hill and in the area signed on to become a “Friend of Scribner Hill” and with John Poto, Kristen Roy and others they are suing the town of Otisfield and U.S. Cellular in Oxford Superior Court claiming their right to be heard on the matter has been denied.
Dixon said they tried to show the effect of the tower on their property to the Appeals Board members. She said board members said they didn’t realize how close it would sit to their house. She tried to show a representative of U.S. Cellular, “who didn’t want to discuss it.”
She also claims the selectmen didn’t thoroughly research the available data
“The selectmen looked at what was given him instead of checking for themselves to see if it was true,” said Dixon.
She said the Planning Board shunned her attempts to inform them.
“The (Planning Board) will not look at the pictures, because they don’t want any new proof to prevent the tower from going up or to tell them they were wrong in their vote,” she said.
Dixon, 62, and Brown, 65, moved from Minot to the seven-acre parcel of land high on Scribner Hill at the junction of Ivory Hill Road. The site is where the former Scribner Hill Schoolhouse — a one-room schoolhouse that ceased being used in 1924 — used to be.
“We are the closest to the tower, and we will see the tower every time we go outside or drive up our driveway,” Dixon said. Although she supports the cause, Dixon said she is not a member of the Friends of Scribner Hill and their suit against the town and U.S. Cellular. Brown is.
“We have put our heart and soul here, and now to live under a cell tower makes us sick and upset all the time. Yes, we need progress, not at the heartaches of others,” Dixon said.
The Planning Board is set to vote on their facts of finding at 7 p.m. Tuesday in the Otisfield Town Hall.
I don’t want to live in a place where neighbors get to decide what people do on THEIR OWN LAND. You should have bought the parcel I guess.
I agree. That’s why Roxanne Quimby should be able to do what she wants with her acreage too.
Quimby can do whatever she wants with her land, but that does not mean that the government has to accecpt her “gift” or do with it as she demands if the gift is accepted.
She just didn’t realize the Property Taxes were going to be so High. Solution= Donate land to State or federal Government.
Agree 100%…as long as we (taxpayers) aren’t required to maintain it (national park).
I believe I just read in the last couple of days that she has endowed the possible “park” so it will be self sustaining.
Same type of person who will complain when they don’t have cell service elsewhere in the State.
Nah, I used to like getting away from all technology on a lake, and only pulse dialing on the phone……..
Then a cell tower appeared across the lake in perfect view. Cell reception was great, those vacation days were over……. :(
What’s worse is that cell reception was spotty and mostly didn’t work in the city, which is where I wanted it to work……. :(
Maybe you should have bought more land, including the land the tower will be built on.
think of how clear your cell service will be if you have that provider
Plus i bet that US Cellaur will allow more carries to put signal busters on thier tower for money too.
Too true. When we were looking for residential property in Maine and talked to our real estate broker about the zoning and permitted uses of nearby properties, he said something to the effect of, “If you want zoning, you have to buy it.” We’ve learned what he meant.
Sell and move on, don’t let the door hit you on the way out. Pretty sad that one couple is threatening to move and it becomes newsworthy…oooo, the town is just shakin’ in their boots.
Good luck with that, their property value is about to dive drastically. I wonder how much property tax revenue the town will lose because of the lower property values of the houses that now have a wonderful view of a cell tower?
It’s not, it’s actually true. They don’t own that land next to them and therefore things can be done to it without their consent, if they were so worried about having a nice quiet place to live and wanted to stare at pine trees swaying, snapping, dying in the wind, they could have bought more land and had more views. They don’t own it, too bad. Maybe when they sell and move they will think of that on their next purchase
my point is they already own 7 acres and how were they suppose to know a cell tower would come in behind them? not to mention the planning board just looking at dollar signs and not allowing graphic pictures to show how much an eyesore it will be. You can too bad but you should not be critical of the property owners, they aren’t bad people – you would do the same to protect your homestead. now , if they can sell, they will lose alot of money.
It’s called planning and thinking ahead. That is how they would know if a cell tower is to be built around them. They don’t own the land too bad.
If my neighbor wants to build a bright pink shed on his land, guess what? I can’t do a thing about it despite how ugly looking it is. It is his land. Who cares if the town is looking for money, they own the land, they are not in the business to please 2 people in their town. Nobody in all of the history of people whining that a cell tower is going to be built on someone elses land can demonstrate what gives them the right to think they own the land and have a say in it. Because they don’t.
Again, move out, move on, don’t let the door hit them on the way out.
Oh and by the way, if I look out my window I can see the a cell tower, a spot light from an airport, and to my west I can see another tower in a different town! I got nothing to protect or complain about and my house was appraised last year for a refi, value increased, cell towers isn’t doing anything about decreasing it.
and how would they know? also how far away is the tower from your house and was the airport there when you bought?
Yes the airport was there as well as one of the towers, How far away are they? I don’t need to go out and measure how far they are, the point is they are in sight of my house when I step on my deck like with these folks here, the whole issue they are complaining about. I knew with the view I had that someday someone could go slap a skyscraper or a church steeple in some of the views too. It is something I took into consideration when I bought the land, but it is their land, they can do what they want with it, just like I could with mine. If I want to build an ugly brown color barn and garage, I can do that, because it is my land.
If someday I don’t like what I am seeing, I can easily move…..
clearly your situation is totally different from the cell tower folks. sorry you can’t see their issue. i suppose it will take something like a 50% drop dead offer of forceable imminent domain to see if you would fight for your property.
…
gotcha . i just think it’s reasonable for them to fight this as much as they can. in fact i do not know of one instance, when faced with a celltower next to their property, that people didn’t fight it. this is more than a pink house next door, it’s a commericial enterprise making money at that property owners ‘expense’. these fights will slowly teach the cell phone companies to be better neighbors.
So the people who own the adjacent property must maintain the scenic view for the benefit of Dixon and Brown? By what right?
How is it different? It’s not clearly different, I don’t see you at my property. A cell tower was put up nearby since I acquired my home and is more visible then the first one…a lot more and a lot closer. What folks such as yourself are failing to see is if you don’t own it, you can’t do a thing about it unless you can prove it breaks some law. I don’t even see these folks contacting an appraiser to get a report on what would happen to the cost of their home. Again my value in my house went up and I did not make any significant noteworthy changes in my land to increase it and that cell tower was put up.
A lot of folks need to understand, you can’t do anything about it.
Now if someone wanted to put in taller pine trees they could see swaying in the wind, they wouldn’t say anything about it….
Of course the value will decrease and I bet all those towers were already in place when you bought your house. These people probably chose their home/land because of the scenery. I agree the Cell tower should be put wherever the town says it can be put but I don’t blame the people for not liking it. Who would want to pay what these folks probably did without a nice view? No one who could afford not to.
This “article” is basically just one big list of claims that the homeowners made.. And they can complain all they want; if it’s not their land, their complaints are a waste of breath.
Even if they owned the land the tower will be on, it could still be built. Does “eminent domain” ring a bell? We own land the power co. has an “easement” on and they just came in when we weren’t home and cut down a big beautiful maple tree which had been there for 50 years, which by the way was on OUR SIDE OF THE EASEMENT LINE and on the edge of our lawn. All they said was “new federal requirements” and the tree had to be cut, without even notifying us.
Boo Hoo…..I’m verklempt! bet you burned the tree for fire wood though!!!
Now here’s a guy who actually has a reason to complain. The BDN should do an article about your situation, instead!
Never happen at BDN.
They favor the big powerline upgrade in order to pump the power from the puke-green windmills down to their friends in southern New England.
For this situation to be accurate the tree in question probably was partialy on the easment line (overhanging or otherwise) and a potential danger to the power lines.
All property owners are subject to these laws. The power company can trim and cut down trees endangering power lines throughout the state.
It is because of the attitudes of people like this couple that Maine hurts economically. We need to support improvements to our infrastructure in order to survive and thrive. If I were them I’d have been working to find a spot on MY property for the tower! I believe it’s about a grand a month from the company to lease the space? Yup, I’d be sending out the welcome wagon.
It was that kind of bowing to money and power that led to pollution of maine’s river and streams among other things. how about the cell phone companies find better ways to be good neighbors instead !
Oh puuuuleeeze!
Cry me a dirty brown river.
I would just ask US Cellular for free phones and service. I can always turn my deck chair to face a different direction.
Plus i would want x number dollars a month for it being on my land to
In some places, cell phone companies have been able to work with locals to help the tower be less conspicuous. Has this been looked into as a possibility? Even it is ruled out, it may be worthwhile to at least consider how to make the eyesore less hard on the eyes.
Typical NIMBY. But they would be okay with it in someone elses back yard.
Went through this about 12 years ago in our residential area. The developer had one housing lot “re-zoned” with the town from residential to commercial to get a huge cell tower placed. Everyone in the immediate neighborhood found out anyway and requested the town planning board hold public meeting. I was concerned the plans had zero info on lightning strike dissipation. US Cell had the town convinced the tower was needed as an essential service. They even had a colored map of their area coverage. I asked to view a map of the competitors. They didn’t have one but I did. The area was already covered (so much for “essential service”). The attorney for US Cell was asked and admitted other companies also covered the area. US Cell ultimately did not build the tower. The developer was upset as he’d lost money. He didn’t care about the neighborhood, he just wanted the money. US Cell did get a permit to build one a mile away, but did not. Technology changed so quickly in those 6 months a tower was not needed at all anyway. So at least in our case, the tower was not needed (but with all the research we did it was obvious the cell tower companies would sneak right in and put one in next to your backyard with NO CONCERN for YOU).
If the town only re-zoned one lot from residential to commerical and there were no previous commercial lots adjoining or abutting that could be considered “spot zoning” which could open the town up to lawsuits if other companies or individuals ask for re-zoning and were denied.
I wouldn’t mind having awesome cell reception out my back door. I really don’t think this is a legitimate reason to move
….
“Maine the way life should be… quiet and scenic”.
Yep, and broke because of it. Hope you don’t complain about the roads being a mess.
They built a house on their 7 acre lot such that this tower would be 260 feet from their back door with the required set back included.
If they wanted to be in the middle of the woods they should have built in the middle of their lot instead of tryning to force someone else to forgo using their own property as they see fit.
on the bright side if a person has a US cellular phone think how CLEAR the signal will be. right near the property yet . good reception think if it that way. i wouldnt mind a cell phone tower on my property but i would insist on rights to cell phone service to that provider
i wouldnt mind having a cell tower near me if it was my provider think how good my phone service will be . big thing now is 4G
Actually, it won’t work that well if you are too close.
I’m surprised that with 7 acres of property the tower is that close to them. They must have a bowling alley lot. As for the tower, Iwould probably move too if I had that tower nearby, but who on earth would buy a home with a tower that close to them. This structure will lower the value of their home and they will probably not be able to sell it anyway.
Cry, NIMBY, Cry. Sell your house and move. I hear that north of Hudson Bay is nice.
BANANA
Not at all.
Crackalacka is totally correct. Maine needs more towers to have better service. I bet how many times have this same couple complained that they can’t get a signal, come on.
At least they’re thinking of moving for understandable aesthetic reasons, rather than out of a hysterical fear of radio waves.
Is there any reason that this is news?
So according to you nothing is news
Don’t be obtuse people decide to sell a house everyday.
A couple deciding to move is not news.
Or you suggesting that “nothing” would be news.
Give him another month in the hole to think about it. Or am I being obtuse? Sorry had a Shawshank moment.
They own 7 acres yet built so that a cell tower, with the required set back from the property line, is just 260 feet from their back door.
If they did not want to be so close to what the neighboring property can be legally used for – why did they build right up next to someone else property line?
Their p*ss poor planning should not turn into economic loss for others.
Ok so move. Cool story.
Why is this news?
You don’t find much news anymore on this site.
Did the reporter ask for Dixon’s or Brown’s cell number so followups would be facilitated?
Time for you to sell and move on before your property is worthless. These towers are reportedly cancer causing.
… in much the same way that the British royal family are “reportedly” baby-eating lizards from outer space.
and here I thought it was ants they were eating…I need to get my facts straight next time, a common thing people seem to have here, speak with no facts.
That is pretty disheartening for the retired couple, especially since it will be hard to sell as well with a pending cell tower looming over their property. The board needs to look at the pictures. If it was their home, they would also be upset. Where is the Golden Rule? Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you?
Pushing to get this story in the newspaper was a great (sarcasm) idea if you are going to try to sell your home folks.
Maybe the tower owner should disguise the tower as a tree, like the ridiculous one at the WB rest area on the Mass Turnpike! It’s awful, but funny.
If it means I can get better cell service to increase the reliability of my network and improve the communications of my business and the other area residents and businesses, then I would let them build a cell tower on the roof of my house. Cell service in Maine is unreliable at best. Anytime it can be improved, it is a good thing.
I wonder if they approached US Cellular for a tree tower, like as been proposed at Acadia?
It is dismaying to see how many people make and support the vitriolic comments made regarding the couple involved. This near-hatred is appalling, as is the belief that cell service is the answer to problems in Maine or anywhere else.
The negative physiological effects, not to mention the visual impact, of cell towers is being documented, along with the effects of proximity to wind turbines, SmartMeters, etc. It is because of the health effects that European countries have banned their use, often, only to bring them to the U.S., where, apparently, it is better to show the money than to care about human health, or the health of any living thing.
The question is this: why is there not more advanced, safer, and less intrusive technology. The Curiosity Rover is on Mars, working by remote control, yet, (in the name of profit?), installations of rather primitive devices continue to be the norm. There are probably solutions; but who will bother to invest in them, when there is quick money at hand?
Here in Rockland, we have been experiencing sound problems, generated variously, from the Industrial Park, and the Harbor area. There are high-pitched tones, that occur day and night, permeate the house, disrupt sleep, cause headaches, and other symptoms, and much misery.
After much investigation, and communication with probably source companies, it remains our opinion that one cause of the sound is unmuffled industrial blowers. Muffling the blowers is not an expensive undertaking, but, repeatedly, I am advised that no source can be found, even though I have recordings from one of the sites that clearly indicates the source.
Emphasizing to the companies that worker safety, and jobs are of the utmost concern, has done nothing to encourage the companies to institute some abatement measures. If they have discovered that there can be no abatement, they have not stated as much.
Meanwhile, and, although there are some days and nights without the infernal, penetrating sound, using fans to disrupt the sound to allow fo sleep, or other sound-abating devices, does not work, and, I assure the readers, there are health effects and quality of life is greatly impacted. Trying to keep this low-profile, and not make it community issue has done no good. But how can confirmation and community support be engaged without the help of media when, especially in the case of important key employers, misconstruing possible fixes for condemntion of the industry, is rampant and threatening.
I don’t think the couple in the article are out of line at all. And it is only through news articles like this, that concerns can be brought to more people, even at the risk of verbal assaults.
NIMBY punks.
Cell towers encourage distracted driving and cause highway fatalities. Maybe the ‘property rights’ whiners should think about that before jumping on the case of people trying to protect their own property from frivolous towers which should be banned statewide along with wind turbines. People live in Maine to get away from industrial litter.
We are 200 feet from a higher cell phone tower, it does not bother us at all…
I am sure glad I don’t live next to you all in Maine. Whenever I hear again, “why did you leave Maine it is such a beautiful state” I’ll remember how spiteful and hateful some in Maine are, including a lot of my relatives.
Its not looking at it that is the problem, in Europe there are strict rules to keep towers large distances from buildings as the emissions are VERY dangerous, you should research it.
Put it next to a McDonalds. I mean seriously. Add to an already blighted spot.
It is beyond troubling that a for profit enterprise is sanctioned by an FCC ruling that
prohibits planning boards from considering ‘health effects’ when siting cell towers.
If long term exposure to electromagnetic radiation is ‘safe’ why did the FCC need to make the ruling ?
Why isn’t the cell phone industry simply citing the independent, peer reviewed, scientific research proving that exposure is safe – that would reassure us all ?
Perhaps because no humans volunteered for the study; or perhaps it would have been an unethical study to propose ?? … and now it is going to be conducted on your neighbors anyway ?
What other industry would get away with selling a service contract for a phone service – that it cannot provide – and get away with it ? When you bought into it you were never even informed of where it would work and where it wouldn’t work ! There should have been a class action suit against all cell service providers for breach of contract as little as five years ago. At least forcing them to be honest about what they were selling you.
They are relying on those addicted to the convenience of the service gripping to local planning boards that they ‘have no service’ in their area to get these towers infiltrated into residential areas where they are exposing residents, and their children, to unknown health risks.
And please – don’t bother going off on this unless you can send me the research proving that long term exposure to electromagnetic radiation – often, horrifically magnified by the co-locatization stipulation that mandates that cell tower owners provide space for any other provider that also wants to broadcast their service from it – is harmless to all life, not just those protected by NEPA [eagles and salmon].
That is ONLY possible because we allow it.
Just curious – does the town of Otisfield have a Wireless Communications Ordinance ?