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.

Community Conversation for Opioid Response Funding

By Breanna SteeleiBerkshires Staff
PITTSFIELD, Mass. — Massachusetts is expected to receive a billion dollars through settlements with various companies that have supplied opioids. 
 
Sixty percent of these monies will go toward the Opioid Recovery and Remediation Fund to help manage state efforts with 40 percent going towards municipalities.
 
State public health officials have been holding listening sessions on how to best to use the settlement. Some of those ideas in Berkshire County were drug courts and mandatory treatment, recovery programs for mothers with small children, and lowering barriers for transitioning into treatment. 
 
On March 12, epidemiologist Casey Leon and Director of Opioid Abatement Strategy and Implementation Julia Newhall from the Bureau of Substance Addiction Services, and Erika Hensel project manager for opioid response with the Attorney General's Office, attended a session at the Living in Recovery Center. 
 
Andy Ottoson, who co-facilitates substance prevention and overdose reduction programs at the Berkshire Regional Planning Commissions through the Berkshire Overdose Addiction Prevention Collaboration, led the conversation.
 
In attendance were also District Attorney Timothy Shugrue, state Rep. Tricia Farley-Bouvier, Berkshire Athenaeum social worker Gabriela Leon, and city and recovery center representatives.
 
Shugrue said low-level drug cases should be diverted into treatment pretrial rather than prosecuted. He said many courts and counsels are not using the programs available or are unaware of diversion options. He asked if there could be training for judges to promote diversion as an option and to coordinate so that more people are diverted early, which could help reduce overdose risk.
 
View Full Story

More Pittsfield Stories