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 Considers Updating its Municipal Code

By Sabrina DammsiBerkshires Staff
DALTON, Mass. — The town is considering updating its original 18-year municipal code to 2026 standards. 
 
During a recent Select Board meeting, General Code New England account manager Zach Dumont outlined the 18- to-24 month process. 
 
General Code New England is a division of the International Code Council, which writes all the statewide building codes across the United States. For the last 18 years, the organization has been the codifier for municipalities. 
 
"We work with communities to build, maintain, and update your local municipal code. That is your collection of bylaws, ordinances, regulations, and any other legislation you've ever adopted," Dumont said. 
 
Once the project is complete, the town would have a fully updated set of books and an improved eCode360 site, he said. 
 
"The way the process would work is we would put together a scope of work, a timeline, a price point, and everything that we would want to touch or do as a part of the code project," Dumont said. 
 
When a municipal code is built, it has a general lifespan of about 15 to 20 years, and although that is a long time, it goes by very quickly, he said. 
 
View Full Story

More Pittsfield Stories