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 Board Continues Berkshire Concrete Permit for Fourth Time

By Sabrina DammsiBerkshires Staff
DALTON, Mass. — The saga over Berkshire Concrete's special permit persists as the Planning Board last week voted to continue the hearing for the fourth time. 
 
Some movement had been made as the board agreed to close the public hearing and enter into  deliberations, which means no further comments or submissions can be made by the audience or the applicant. 
 
"I know everybody wants to get this done. I do too, believe me, but I think it's best if we review the information we have and the new information we have and make better decisions," said Chair Zack McCain III. 
 
During the prior three meetings, the board asked Petricca Industries, the parent company of Berkshire Concrete, to provide updated, accurate, and clear plans. 
 
Board members said they did not receive the documentations until Tuesday; the hearing was on Wednesday.
 
Petricca Industries' attorney Dennis Egan Jr. of Cohen Kinne Valicenti & Cook LLP, said that assertion was misleading because the town electronically received the updated documents the prior week and the physical copies were delivered on Tuesday. Town Hall is closed on Friday and there was a snowstorm on Monday. 
 
The board reviewed the updated documents, in addition to the overlay of the 1994 special permit onto the drawing submitted in October, which the board requested Berkshire Concrete create but didn't so a board member did it instead. 
 
View Full Story

More Pittsfield Stories