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 Seeks State Support for Berkshire Mall Redevelopment

By Sabrina DammsiBerkshires.com
LANESBOROUGH, Mass. — The town plans to petition the state to take ownership of the Route 7/Route 8 Connector Road, which officials believe is a "critical component" of the Berkshire Mall’s redevelopment strategy.
 
On Tuesday, the Select Board approved a letter to state Sen. Paul Mark and state Rep. John Barrett III to request their support for the vacant mall's redevelopment by helping advance transfer of the Route 7/Route 8 connector and considering funding for essential infrastructure.
 
"We have held discussions with the Baker Hill Road District … which will take the necessary steps to formally petition the commonwealth to take over ownership of the Route 7, Route 8 connector…Your continued support in facilitating this transfer is greatly appreciated," the letter says. 
 
Berkshire Mall owner JMJ RE Holdings has said the potential sale and redevelopment of the mall hinges on dissolving the Baker Hill Road District, a condition of the agreement that, if unmet, would render the contract null and void.
 
As a result, the mall will continue to deteriorate and the litigation will proceed forward, said Tim Grogan, of JMJ. 
 
Vera Farrell, the liaison to the Baker Hill Road District, said the district board had discussed at one of its most recent meetings that the connector road could be transferred directly to the state, rather than returned to the town; Barrett and Mark were also a part of the discussion.
 
"The representatives recommended that as an option, that it could transfer the connector road directly to the state, as opposed to deeding it back to the town to dispense it. If we get to that point, that would be a better option to do it that way," Farrell said. 
 
View Full Story

More Pittsfield Stories