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 Board Signs Off on Land Sale Over Residents' Objections

By Sabrina DammsiBerkshires Staff

Residents demanded the right to speak but the agenda did not include public comment. Amy Musante holds a sign saying the town now as '$20,000 less for a police station.'
DALTON, Mass. — The Select Board signed the sale on the last of what had been known as the Bardin property Monday even as a handful of residents demanded the right to speak against the action. 
 
The quitclaim deed transfers the nine acres to Thomas and Esther Balardini, who purchased the two other parcels in Dalton. They were the third-highest bidders at $31,500. Despite this, the board awarded them the land in an effort to keep the property intact.
 
"It's going to be an ongoing battle but one I think that has to be fought [because of] the disregard for the taxpayers," said Dicken Crane, the high bidder at $51,510.
 
"If it was personal I would let it go, but this affects everyone and backing down is not in my nature." 
 
Crane had appealed to the board to accept his bid during two previous meetings. He and others opposed to accepting the lower bid say it cost the town $20,000. After the meeting, Crane said he will be filing a lawsuit and has a citizen's petition for the next town meeting with over 100 signatures. 
 
Three members of the board — Chair Robert Bishop Jr., John Boyle, and Marc Strout — attended the 10-minute meeting. Members Anthony Pagliarulo and Daniel Esko previously expressed their disapproval of the sale to the Balardinis. 
 
Pagliarulo voted against the sale but did sign the purchase-and-sale agreement earlier this month. His reasoning was the explanation by the town attorney during an executive session that, unlike procurement, where the board is required to accept the lowest bid for services, it does have some discretion when it comes to accepting bids in this instance.
 
View Full Story

More Pittsfield Stories