Letter: Lenox Planners Should Consider Residents in Cell-Tower Siting Bylaw

Letter to the EditorPrint Story | Email Story

To the Editor:

I have been attending meetings in regard to the new wireless zoning bylaw for the last 18 months. As a Lenox resident, the biggest concern is that the new bylaw is not protective of its residents. The new bylaw is industry-friendly and makes it difficult, if not impossible to push back on an application if you find one being proposed for next to, or on your home. The only recourse that was shared with us, if an application is approved, is private litigation. 

Private litigation would be against the town and against the telecom company. Hiring an experienced attorney who specializes in fighting inappropriately sited wireless installations is cost prohibited for many, especially elderly, low-income and disabled residents who don't want cellular antennas on the roof of our home at the Curtis.

Private litigation may or may not be more affordable for those on Delafield Drive, whose closest property line is 250 feet from a hypothetically proposed cell tower at the wastewater treatment facility, a site that was identified to offer additional coverage to Lenox Dale.

Well-resourced neighborhoods may be able to afford litigation, whereas less-resourced neighborhoods may be stuck with a cell tower they are not comfortable with. 



All residents should be protected. Many of us live in Lenox for the natural beauty, the historic qualities and the peaceful enjoyment of this town. While everyone deserves cell service, we equally deserve to be protected from the blight, real estate devaluation, and RF emissions — which are classified as a pollutant, hazard and environmental toxin. 

I acknowledge the work the Planning Board has put into this bylaw revision, but it simply is not written in favor of the residents. Shelburne, Great Barrington, Stockbridge and others have significant setbacks from schools and residences from 800 feet to 3,000 feet.

Lenox must expand setbacks, have comprehensive design standards and re-instate your existing strong purpose statement "to locate towers and antennas so they do not have negative impacts such as, but not limited to, visual blight, attractive nuisance, noise and falling objects, on the general safety, welfare and quality of life of the community" as well as to "preserve property values." These changes would go a long way to making the bylaw balanced for all.

Diane Sheldon
Lenox, Mass.

 

 

 


Tags: cell tower,   

If you would like to contribute information on this article, contact us at info@iberkshires.com.

Dalton Select Board Reorganizes

By Sabrina DammsiBerkshires Staff
DALTON, Mass. — The Select Board voted Robert Bishop as chair and Dan Esko as vice chair during its meeting last week. 
 
The motion was made by Marc Strout and seconded by Bishop to nominate Esko as vice chair. 
 
Esko has been on the board for four years and has served as vice chair for one year thus far. 
 
He said later that he is feeling very positive about the future and is happy to continue serving as vice chair.
 
"Having served as chair of the Planning Board for several years previously, I am comfortable in a board leadership role and can run meetings competently and efficiently in the absence of the chair," he said in a follow-up.
 
"I am looking forward to continuing my work on the Select Board with my colleagues to address the town’s current and future needs in collaboration with the Town Manager, department heads, and other boards and committees." 
 
The motion was made by Strout and seconded by Joesph Diver to nominate Bishop for chair. The decision passed unanimously. 
 
View Full Story

More Pittsfield Stories