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 Rolls Out Reassignments for Morningside Students Next Year

By Brittany PolitoiBerkshires Staff

PITTSFIELD, Mass. — As it prepares to retire Morningside Community School, the Pittsfield Public Schools recommends sending cohorts of its students to other elementaries rather than redrawing attendance boundaries. 

A public hearing was held at the school on Tuesday so that community members could comment on three different options for Morningside students next year: 

  • Option 1: Adjusts some attendance zones, including moving a portion of the Allendale Elementary School neighborhood to Williams Elementary School for transportation efficiency. 
  • Option 2: A larger district-wide redistricting model that would affect multiple schools. 
  • Option 3: Reassigns students currently attending Morningside to receiving schools without changing attendance zones for other elementary schools. 

Interim Superintendent Latifah Phillips explained that option three is recommended because it prioritizes keeping cohorts of Morningside students together while minimizing broader boundary changes during the first phase of elementary redistricting. 

Allendale, Capeless, Egremont, and Williams elementary schools have been identified to welcome Morningside students in the fall. 

"And I say first phase because as many are aware, we're in the process of the West Side School construction project, and moving forward, we currently are in a feasibility study, and there will be decisions that are made regarding Crosby Elementary, Conte Community School, and Stearns Elementary School," Phillips added. 

"The district will need to revisit attendance boundaries as part of our future planning efforts, so at that time, option one or option two, or variations of those models may be considered." 

The district is seeking up to 80 percent reimbursement from the Massachusetts School Building Authority for a consolidated and combined rebuild of Crosby and Conte on West Street. 

Per district policy, a public hearing must be held any time a school building is closed or attendance boundaries are revised.  Last week, three community meetings were held at different times of the day, and the feedback received was compiled into an FAQ sheet presented on Tuesday. 

The administration worked with a redistricting consultant to develop the three possible options, which were displayed in the Morningside cafeteria for the hearing.  Data on student population trends, school capacities, population density, transportation considerations, walk and ride distances, and long-term enrollment projections informed the proposals. 

View Full Story

More Pittsfield Stories