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.

Lanesborough Officials Take Road District Dissolution Off Warrant

By Breanna SteeleiBerkshires Staff

LANESBOROUGH, Mass. — The Select Board has removed a town meeting warrant article regarding the dissolution of the Baker Hill Road District.

JMJ Holdings development consultant Tim Grogan spoke in public comment saying the Berkshire Mall owner is currently has purchase-and-sale agreement for the mall. 

Back in February, the Select Board settled a tax dispute with JMJ Holdings by agreeing to move forward in dissolving the district if the company paid $1.1 million to the town. JMJ Holdings had to provide a signed development-and-purchase agreement 30 days before the town meeting. 

JMJ holdings did not submit a payment to be made by May 9. Because of that, the Select Board voted to take the article of the warrant to be voted at the annual town meeting.

Meanwhile, the Baker Hill Road District presented a slideshow defending the district and explaining what it does.

The district currently provides a non-resident-funded revenue stream of around $500,000 per year. These funds help pay for police cars and officer salaries, dump trucks, fire trucks, and more for the town.

"Dissolution would mean the district's three commercial property owners would no longer have to pay for upkeep of the Route Seven/Eight connector road. As a result, the BHRD annual contribution of more than $500,000 to Lanesborough would disappear permanently, since the services and maintenance costs associated with the Route Seven and Eight connector road would still remain," said Tom Caraccioli, PR consultant with AH&M Inc. "Lanesborough would have to absorb these costs and continue to provide emergency services to the mall and Target. The financial burden for these remaining expenses would then fall on Lanesborough taxpayers through higher taxes or the reduction of other important town services."

The proposal with JMJ would affect the town in a negative way Caraccioli claimed. 

"JMJ is proposing a one-time payment of $1.1 million to Lanesborough in exchange, JMJ would never pay BHRD taxes again. The decision to dissolve the BHRD by accepting this proposed $1.1 million would be a permanent choice that would have irreversible consequences," he said. "There will be no official system in place to cover recurring costs once the money from this single payment is spent. Therefore, the proposed one-time payment is not a long-term solution for the town of Lanesborough."

JMJ's dispute was that the Berkshire Mall no longer exists as a functioning entity and it should not be on the hook for protection and maintenance that had been based on the mall's operation in its heyday. The company is seeking to redevelop the site as senior housing and town officials were asking the state to take over the Connector Road. 

District officials said it's not guaranteed that the state would take over the road linking Routes 7 and 8, built to service the mall back in the '80s, and that the state Department of Transportation had historically discouraged the town from asking. Even if it happened, it could take three to five years, during which no BHRD funds would be collected if the district is dissolved. The state would not replace the revenue they support, and they argued the state is facing its own budget issues making it unlikely they would want to take over.

The road district was created by an act of the Legislature and would require another act to dissolve it. The town meeting article asked for voter support for a home-rule petition to start that process.  

After the presentation, it was asked what the current financial status of the BHRD, given that JMJ hasn’t paid in a long time and if the district actually has the money or if it is dependent on the mall sale.

Mark Siegars, attorney for BHRD, reminded the room that the mall is under a purchase and sale agreement and if the sale closes, the district expects to receive more than a million dollars because of the lawsuit and lien, but does not have that cash yet. If the sale does not go through, BHRD will take the mall and sell it. The district still gets payments from Target, which is separate from the mall. 

There were also some questions on the district's history, with Select Board member Jason Breault asking if the mall did not have a high tax rate from the district, would it still be solvent. The exchange became heated between Siegars and BHRD Chair Bill Prendergast.

View Full Story

More Pittsfield Stories