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.

Dalton Planning Board Denies Berkshire Concrete's Special Permit

By Sabrina DammsiBerkshires Staff
DALTON, Mass. — After five meetings, the Planning Board voted to deny Berkshire Concrete's special permit, however, the company can still reapply before its current permit expires. 
 
After about 40 minutes of deliberation, board members reiterated recurring concerns raised in previous meetings: the company's lack of clear mitigation plans and ambiguous documentation outlining its work plans.
 
"I really have no confidence in their proposal so far," said Chair Zack McCain III.
 
The board denied the permit without prejudice, meaning Berkshire Concrete, a subsidiary of Petricca Industries, can reapply before its current permit expires in December 2027. 
 
According to the current permit, earth removal, such as excavation, processing, and reclamation is allowed on lots 217-3 and 106-55.1, but is subject to several conditions set forth in 1992, 1994, and 2000. 
 
Conditions include hours of operations, traffic regulations, restoration requirements, and other stipulations. 
 
This decision indicates the board's belief, based on testimony and provided evidence that the excavation activities in the areas cannot occur without having a negative impact on the abutting neighborhood. 
 
View Full Story

More Pittsfield Stories