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 Schools Won't Release PHS Report

By Brittany PolitoiBerkshires Staff

PITTSFIELD, Mass. — With the threat of legal action from staff members, the School Committee has voted not to release the redacted PHS investigative reports and instead re-release the executive summary. 

On Wednesday, elected school officials rescinded a January vote to release the reports with required redactions by Feb. 18, a deadline that was never met, and voted to re-release the executive summary.   

When it came time to vote on releasing the redacted May 2025 Pittsfield High School investigative report, only Ciara Batory and Carolyn Barry were in favor. 

"This is a year of PR that we've been getting on the Pittsfield High report. This has been going on for over a year, nonstop, every other month, something about the PHS report. It has not gone away for a reason, and the reason it did not go away is because people want to know what happened," Batory said. 

"These are people's children. I was reluctant to send my kids to school after reading this. Had I not trusted the schools that my kids go to and have relationships with the front office, I would have pulled all three of my children out of these schools after reading the comments that I read online, and again, as a parent, the only reason I wanted to read this is again because I didn't want to find out information from Facebook." 

Three administrators and two teachers, past and present, were investigated by Bulkley Richardson and Gelinas LLP for a range of allegations that surfaced or re-surfaced at the end of 2024 after Pittsfield High's former dean of students was arrested and charged by the U.S. Attorney's Office for allegedly conspiring to traffic large quantities of cocaine in Western Massachusetts.

Some committee members said the January vote to "release the report in a redacted form by Feb. 18 and have it reviewed by the School Committee before its release to ensure there is enough to present" was confusing.

Batory and Barry thought the motion would release the report, which found allegations of misconduct "unsubstantiated." Batory said unsubstantiated does not mean wrongdoing, and it doesn't mean right doing.

View Full Story

More Pittsfield Stories