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.

Pittsfield Council Preview: Councilor Privacy & Halting Berkshire Gas Work Permits

By Brittany PolitoiBerkshires Staff

PITTSFIELD, Mass. — On Tuesday, the City Council will see requests to protect their own safety when it comes to sensitive information, and to deny work permits from Berkshire Gas due to "substandard" conditions. 

A request to remove councilors' addresses from city documents and websites and replace them with "70 Allen Street" to improve safety will be referred to the Ordinances and Rules subcommittee. Councilors' addresses, city email, and phone numbers are currently available on Pittsfield's staff directory page. 

The petition was submitted by Ward 1 Councilor Kenneth Warren, Ward 2 Councilor Cameron Cunningham, Ward 4 Councilor James Conant, and Ward 7 Councilor Katherine Moody. 

The councilors explain in the meeting packet that they want elected officials to have the option to replace their home addresses on all city documents and websites, including Pittsfield Community Television, with the City Hall address. 

Recently, the City Council approved Ward 6 Councilor Dina Lampiasi's request to amend City Council Rule 1C. Rule 1C requires individuals to disclose their name, address, and the subject they wish to address the council about on a sheet before the open microphone portion of meetings.

Lampiasi asked to only require a person's name and municipality. 

"I don't think that submitting a street address is really appropriate," she explained to the O&R subcommittee earlier this month. 

"It feels invasive, and there are some safety concerns for folks." 

President Earl Persip III wants Berkshire Gas to correct safety and access issues before Pittsfield allows them to do additional work on city property. 

View Full Story

More Pittsfield Stories