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.

Parole Granted to Pittsfield Man Sentenced for Killing Toddler Son

Staff Reports
PITTSFIELD, Mass. — A city man serving a life sentence for killing his 2-year-old son 43 years ago has been granted parole. 
 
According to the Boston Globe, the Parole Board on Monday voted to release Richard N. Mayes Jr., 78, to a halfway house.
 
Mayes was charged with beating his son to death in 1983 when he wouldn't eat. The child, Lawrence Richon, had received blows to his head, body, arms and legs. Mayes also told police he'd hit his son four times with a plastic baseball bat. 
 
According to media reports at the time, Mayes tried to resuscitate Lawrence when he later collapsed and cried to police that he did it when arrested. 
 
The boy was taken by life flight to Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, where he died from blood clots in his head. 
 
Mayes was found guilty of second-degree murder by a Superior Court jury and sentenced to life in state prison.
 
According to the Globe, Mayes had been denied parole five times previously but told the board he had been sober for three decades and had not had a disciplinary report in a dozen years. 
 
View Full Story

More Pittsfield Stories