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 Hopes for Continued Talks on Mall Sale

By Breanna SteeleiBerkshires Staff
LANESBOROUGH, Mass. — The Select Board is optimistic that talks for the Berkshire Mall sale will continue. 
 
Chair Deborah Maynard and Vice Chair Juli Baker were to meet with mall owner JMJ Holdings, the Baker Hill Road District, and proposed buyer Cypress Equities on Tuesday to discuss next steps. As of Wednesday, iBerkshires had received a "we are optimistic" from Maynard on the talks. The Berkshire Eagle reported a response from a Cypress representative saying talks will continue.  
 
Baker had updated the Select Board on Monday about the status of the sale and the efforts being undertaken by the renamed Baker Hill Economic District.
 
Cypress Equities pulled out of a purchase-and sale-agreement with mall owner JMJ last week for the following reasons. 
  • Not enough water service/pressure to the property to support redevelopment without constructing costly water tanks.
  • The current septic system and former treatment facility is not acceptable for a project of the scale and magnitude proposed.
  • There is existing asbestos and bad soil from the treatment system that needs to be remediated off site.
  • And the current structure and tax assessment of the Baker Hill Road District.
Baker has been working with what is now being called the Baker Hill Economic District and said she and the district members are happy that Cypress has decided to leave the door open to more discussions and that they have been working hard to try and address the company's needs.
 
Last month, the town had asked state Sen. Paul Mark and state Rep. John Barrett III to support the state Department of Transportation taking over the Connector Road, funding for a mall connection to Pittsfield's wastewater treatment plant and a connection to the town's water main.
 
Baker said an amendment has been drafted to cap the district's taxes to not grow more than 2.5 percent a year. She noted that, historically, taxes have not grown by more than one percent per year, so it won't be difficult to meet that cap.
 
View Full Story

More Pittsfield Stories