Letter: Lenox Planners Should Consider Residents in Cell-Tower Siting Bylaw

Letter to the Editor04:00PM / Tuesday, November 29, 2022Print 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,

iBerkshires.com Text Ads

rk MILES Blding Materials

Are You Ready to Update Your Home? Start With rk MILES. 4 Locations (800)670-7433

www.rkmiles.com

Save & Earn with Greylock

3.30% APY 6-month certificate. Click to learn more! Insured by NCUA.

www.greylock.org

If you would like to contribute information on this article, contact us at info@iberkshires.com.

Pittsfield Subcommittee Considers E-Bike Safety

By Brittany PolitoiBerkshires Staff
03:34PM / Wednesday, October 07, 2026

PITTSFIELD, Mass. — Some city councilors want to explore ways to encourage safe e-bike use.

On Monday, the Ordinances and Rules Subcommittee discussed the request by Councilor At Large Kathy Amuso and Ward 3 Councilor Matthew Wrinn to increase enforcement of bicycle and e-bike use on Pittsfield streets, install signage in high-traffic areas, and launch an educational program for kids.

Amuso has received reports of kids riding motorized bikes at 15 to 20 mph on the sidewalk while people are trying to back out of their driveways, and she fears someone might get hurt.

She said that if they could start with some basics, such as riding with traffic in bike lanes and requiring operators under 16 to wear helmets, it would address most of the calls.

"Do I think we need to put 10 police on trying to find e-bikes throughout the city? I don't," she said. "But there are enough calls that I'm getting, and other councilors are getting, that we have to say, ‘OK, what can we do?’ And we have a lot of bike lanes in Pittsfield, and the e-bikes and all bikes should be in the bike lanes, not on the sidewalk."

The petition was tabled so that the Department of Public Works can study it and gather further information.

In Massachusetts, an e-bike with a top speed of 20 mph and a motor of 750 watts or less is classified as a traditional bicycle. State law defines two e-bike classes:

"Class 1 electric bicycle" is defined as having a motor of 750 watts or less that provides assistance only when the rider is pedaling and ceases to assist when the bicycle reaches 20 mph.
"Class 2 electric bicycle" is defined as having a motor of 750 watts or less that may be used exclusively to propel the bicycle and is not capable of assisting when the bicycle reaches 20 mph.

Riders 16 years or younger must wear a helmet by law.

View Full Story