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.

Trial Scheduled for North Adams Woman Accused of Killing Grandmother

Staff reportsiBerkshires

PITTSFIELD, Mass. — A 2027 trial date is scheduled for a woman accused of killing her grandmother in North Adams four years ago. 

A jury trial for Kelsie Cote is set for May 24, 2027, in Berkshire Superior Court. 

Cote, 30, is alleged to have killed 74-year-old Doris A. Cote, who was found dead with sharp and blunt force injuries in her Church Street, North Adams, home on Nov. 1, 2022. 

Cote has pleaded not guilty to five felony charges: murder, armed assault to murder a person age 60 or older, two counts of assault and battery with a dangerous weapon of a person age 60 or older, and one count of withholding evidence from official proceedings.

Hearings for evidence suppression will be held on Nov. 30 and Dec. 1. 

A conference to review the case's status was held on Sept. 28. Assistant District Attorney Marianne Shelvey, representing the Berkshire County District Attorney's Office, filed a motion to impound certain documents, which was allowed by Judge Maureen Hogan. 

Cote is represented by attorney Kevin Joseph Reddington, who is also the defense lawyer for Lindsay Clancy, a Duxbury woman accused of killing her three children in 2023. Cote's case has reportedly been delayed because of the seven-week Clancy trial in Plymouth County, which ended in a mistrial on Sept. 4.

The Berkshire Eagle reported that Reddington told the court he seeks to suppress Cote's statements because he argues she was not read her Miranda rights, and that he will file motions to suppress evidence found during the execution of a search warrant, arguing that the police did not have probable cause. 

Allegations include: 

  • On or about Oct. 26 and on Nov. 1, Cote allegedly altered, destroyed, mutilated, or concealed a record, document, or other object or attempted to do so to impair the record, document, or object's integrity for use in an official proceeding. 
View Full Story

More Pittsfield Stories