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.

Site 9 has Another Interested Buyer

By Breanna SteeleiBerkshires Staff

PITTSFIELD, Mass. — The Pittsfield Economic Development Authority held its shortest meeting on Thursday.

In June, Pittsfield's Business Development Manager Michael Coakley said there was an interested buyer for a couple of acres on Site 9, a pharmaceutical research and development company.

Coakley said they have received a purchase and sale agreement but before signing, there have to be assurances that the company has the financial requirements to construct the building.

He was to have another meeting with the company to go over questions on the purchase and sale agreement, as well as environmental and legal questions. Coakley said the company is still very interested and is trying to raise funds for its project. 

Coakley also brought the board up to date on the street names suggested in June 2025 of Mill Town Way, Morningside Way and Innovation Place.

He said Milltown Way and Innovation Place are in the process of being accepted, and the city will take over those streets. They are working with Milltown to make sure they are OK with the process and if it has any questions.

In other news, an electric energy company is interested in leasing Site 7 for six months. This entity hopes to use it for storage of shipping containers, staging, and parking for crews installing smart meters throughout the city. The lease would be $3,100 monthly, but the board could not vote on Thursday as it did not have a quorum.

View Full Story

More Pittsfield Stories