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.

Lanesborough Looks to Dissolve Baker Hill Road District

By Breanna SteeleiBerkshires Staff

LANESBOROUGH, Mass. — The Select Board is looking to move forward with dissolving the Baker Hill Road District, which is hindering the Berkshire Mall sale.

On Friday, the Select Board heard from Vice Chair Juli Baker and Chair Deborah Maynard on how Tuesday negotiations went with Cypress Equities, JMJ Holdings, town counsel, the town administrator, and state Rep. John Barrett III. 

Baker said that during Tuesday's meeting, everyone agreed the goal was to have a successful sale of the mall for redevelopment as it’s in the best interest of the town.

Baker said Barrett assured them the state is willing to take the Connector Road and that the state is willing to provide grants to the town to renovate the water and sewer infrastructure, with an estimated total of $4.5 million, to facilitate the property's redevelopment.

"We have received assurances from Representative Barrett that the Commonwealth will provide the monies and will take the Connector," Baker said.

While buyer Cypress Equities saw some benefit in keeping the district, it now doesn't since the state is willing to provide the funds and renovate the infrastructure, according to Baker. 

Baker said that in the meeting, Cypress Equities prefers to enter into a tax increment financing (TIF) and will add to the agreement an amount of funding for public safety services, which would have come from the district. She said Cypress said it would rather enter into one agreement with the town than two agreements with the town and the district.

Mall owner JMJ Holdings is willing to pay $350,000 to the town upon closing, Baker said. 

The meeting Friday was to consider moving forward with a dissolution of the district.

"But the decision that it hinges on tonight is whether to move forward to the dissolution of the Baker Hill Road District in some manner," she said.

Baker said she has worked long and hard to see if there was another alternative to this, working closely with the district which has been "very cooperative and very helpful" in making changes.

The district had agreed to make changes to its governance and taxation; agreeing to have a cap for Cypress as well as agreeing to work to have the state take over the road, sending letters of support.

"What changed this for me is that I've always said it's important to have the special district because we get the public safety funding, and it's also important for the economic district to bring the features that an economic district brings because of what we're up against with the infrastructure problems, and the change at this point is that we have a buyer who is willing to supply that public safety money and commit to it over time, along with the TIF that the town would do, which is essential," she said.

"At this point, I feel like it's in the best interest of the town and protects the town the best in terms of a future where we can develop a mall and bring that economic benefit in. You definitely need to reduce taxes, and you cannot do that without a fully developed retail operation right there. So it's been, you know, deeply difficult decision making," Baker said.

Board members Jason Breault and Jeffery Walters agreed it was the best decision to move forward.

View Full Story

More Pittsfield Stories