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.

Pittsfield Sees Legal Threats Over PHS Report

By Brittany PolitoiBerkshires Staff

PITTSFIELD, Mass. — City officials say they have received informal threats of legal action if the redacted Pittsfield High School investigation report is released. 

The report was placed on the March 25 School Committee meeting under executive session, and member Ciara Batory argued that the body already voted to release the report by Feb. 18, not review it privately and vote on it again. 

During the meeting, Mayor Peter Marchetti, committee chair, reported that there were threats of legal action if the redacted report were released.  

On Monday, iBerkshires reached out to the mayor's office to clarify the threats. One of the report's subjects and two school unions have said they would consider legal action. 

"We have received written communication from a lawyer representing an individual who is a subject in this report that they will 'pursue all available legal remedies.' In addition, we have received notice from two of the school unions that have indicated they will consider all appropriate legal actions," Catherine VanBramer, director of administrative services/public information officer, responded via email. 

 "Any decisions to release the report would require a majority vote of the School Committee." 

Five past and present PHS staff members were investigated for alleged misconduct, and allegations were found to be "unsupported," according to executive summaries released by the last term's committee. 

Scheduled for the last School Committee meeting was an executive session to discuss an "item of litigation, release of investigation reports." Before the private session, Batory asked if there was active litigation or a specific legal claim. 

View Full Story

More Pittsfield Stories