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.

Dalton Special Town Meeting Rejects Land Buy for Police Station

By Sabrina DammsiBerkshires Staff

Voters hold up cards to be counted on a vote to cast secret ballots on purchase of land question. Voters rejected the land purchase but authorized buying electronic devices for future voting.  
DALTON, Mass. — A special town meeting on Monday night authorized 11 of 12 warrant articles, only nixing a contentious proposal to buy land for a police station.
 
After nearly an hour of discussion, 113 voters rejected by secret ballot the purchase of land on West Housatonic Street for $69,700.
 
Article 2 needed two-thirds to pass, and failed 65-48, about 10 votes short. 
 
A motion was made by Robert Collins for the article to be voted on by secret ballot to ensure ballot privacy, which was approved by 72-19. 
 
Town officials have been debating options for a new police station for more than year, focusing on several parcels that could host a new building and, more recently, the possibility of a combined fire and police station. These included the West Housatonic site, another on Main street and the vacant Dalton High lot next to the Senior Center. 
 
Resident Adelard Nadeau Jr., who previously served on the Fire District's Prudential Committee, argued that the town is spending money that it does not have. 
 
He advocated for the lot by the Senior Center which he believed to be cheaper and shovel ready. 
 
View Full Story

More Pittsfield Stories