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.

Mass Voters Retain Recreational Cannabis, Tighten Gun Laws in Midterms

Staff ReportsiBerkshires

PITTSFIELD, Mass.— Massachusetts resoundingly voted to keep recreational cannabis and tighten gun laws during the midterm election on Tuesday. 

The Democratic Berkshire delegation was re-elected without contest, and unofficial results show Democratic incumbent Maura Healey taking more than 62 percent of the vote for Massachusetts governor over Republican challenger Michael Minogue. 
 
This coincides with the blue tsunami seen nationally during the midterms, with Democrats flipping seats across the United States and taking control of the House and Senate. 

Pittsfield has roughly 10 cannabis dispensaries, alongside several other retail operations and cultivation facilities in Berkshire County. At least three-quarters of the state voted against repealing the legalization that was passed 10 years ago. 

According to unofficial results, 46.89 percent of registered Pittsfield voters went to the polls. Pittsfield's 33,934 registered voters cast 15,913 votes, according to these results. 

As of Wednesday morning, with more than 85 percent of ballots counted, almost 76 percent of voters opposed Question 8, that would repeal the laws that legalize, regulate, and tax the retail sale of adult recreational use marijuana in Massachusetts. It was proposed by an initiative petition. 

Similarly, as of 10 a.m., 67 percent of Massachusetts voters have said "yes" on Question 9, which sustains several changes to Massachusetts laws governing firearms: adding school administrators and licensed healthcare providers as parties permitted to ask a court to issue an Extreme Risk Protection Order if an individual is a present danger to self or others, imposing penalties for possessing, creating, and transferring untraceable "ghost gun" firearms, and more. 

"At a time when the federal government is focused on the priorities of the gun lobby and rolling back national protections, the people of Massachusetts have reaffirmed our commitment to keeping our residents safe through proven, common-sense regulations," American Federation of Teachers Massachusetts President Jessica Tang said in a statement released late on Tuesday evening. 

View Full Story

More Pittsfield Stories