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.

Lanesborough Planners Bring STR, ADU, Signage Bylaws for Town Vote

By Breanna SteeleiBerkshires Staff

LANESBOROUGH, Mass. — The Planning Board held a public hearing on the much anticipated bylaws for short-term rentals, accessory dwelling units, and signage to be presented at the annual town meeting.

For the past few months, planners have diligently been working on wordage of the new bylaws after Second Drop Farm's short-term rental was given a cease and desist because the building inspector said town bylaws don't support them.

The draft bylaw can be found on the website.

The board voted on each of the four articles and heard public comment before moving to entertain any amendments brought forward.

A lot of discussion in the STR section was around parking. Currently the drafted bylaw for parking states short-term rentals require two parking spaces, and with three or more bedrooms, require three spaces but never more than five.

There were questions about the reasons for limiting parking and how they will regulate parking renters choose to park on the lawn or the street. Planners said it is not their call, that is up to the property owner and if it is a public street that would be up to the authorities.

Some attendees called for tighter regulation to make sure neighborhoods are protected from overflow.

Lynn Terry said she lives next to one of the rented houses on Narragansett Avenue and does not feel safe with all of the cars that are parked there. She said there can be up to 10 at a time on the narrow road, and that some people have asked to use her driveway to park. She thinks limiting to five cars based on the house, is very important.

The wordage was amended to say a parking space for each bedroom of the house.

Rich Cohen brought up how his own STR at the Old Stone School helps bring in money and helps to preserve the historic landmark. He told the board he liked what they did and wants to see it pass at town meeting, knowing it might be revised later on.

He said the bylaws now should not be a "one size fits all" but may need to be adjusted to help protect neighborhoods and also preserve places like his.

After asking the audience of fewer than 20 people, the board decided to amend the amount of time an short-term rental can be reserved to 180 days total a year in a residential zone, and 365 days a year in every other zone. This was in the hopes the bylaw will be passed and help to deter companies from buying up properties to run STRs as well as protecting the neighborhood character and stability.

They also capped the stay limit of a guest to 31 days.

Cohen also asked them to add "if applicable" to the Certificate of Inspection rule as the state's rules might change and it can help stop confusion if they have incorrect requirement that the state doesn't need.

The ADU portion did not have much public comment but there were some minor amendments because of notes from KP Law, the town counsel.

View Full Story

More Pittsfield Stories