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 Reviews Financial Condition Before FY27 Budget

By Brittany PolitoiBerkshires Staff

PITTSFIELD, Mass. — The average single-family home in Pittsfield has increased by more than 40 percent since 2022. 

This was reported during a joint meeting of the City Council and School Committee on March 19, when the city's financial condition was reviewed ahead of the fiscal year 2027 budget process.

Mayor Peter Marchetti said the administration is getting "granular" with line items to find cost savings in the budget.  At the time, they had spoken to a handful of departments, asking tough questions and identifying vacancies and retirements. 

Last fiscal year’s $226,246,942 spending plan was a nearly 4.8 percent increase from FY24. 

In the last five years, the average single-family home in Pittsfield has increased 42 percent, from $222,073 in 2022 to $315,335 in 2026. 

"Your tax bill is your property value times the tax rate," the mayor explained. 

"When the tax rate goes up, it's usually because property values have gone down. When the property values go up, the tax rate comes down." 

Tax bills have increased on average by $280 per year over the last five years; the average home costs $5,518 annually in 2026. In 2022, the residential tax rate was $18.56 per thousand dollars of valuation, and the tax rate is $17.50 in 2026. 

View Full Story

More Pittsfield Stories