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.

Car Fire Briefly Shuts Down Section of North Street

By Sabrina DammsiBerkshires Staff

The street was briefly shut down. 
PITTSFIELD, Mass. — Firefighters responded to a car fire on Eagle Street at about 4 p.m. Monday.
 
The 1986 Chevrolet Camaro was parked next to Persip Park when it "blew up," according to a passerby. Firefighters swiftly put out the engine fire but the northbound lane of North Street was briefly shut down and traffic redirected.
 
The blaze that started in the engine compartment was small but smokey, with smoke visible looking north from Fenn Street. 
 
Fire Capt. Mitchell Keller said there were some flames, describing it as a "well involved car fire." He estimated it took about 10 minutes to put out. 
 
"The initial response was Engine 6, right here, because Engine 3, the closest engine was was on another call because of the close proximity to headquarters," he said, referring to the Columbus Avenue station. "Our deputy car two and truck company responded to make sure that the car was unoccupied and that there was no people requiring aid. And then they waited for the engine to get here to for fire extinguishment.
 
He said the cause was undetermined but not suspicious. No one was injured in the fire and authorities were trying to track down the owner.  
View Full Story

More Pittsfield Stories