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.

Berkshire Mall Owners Press for Road District Dissolution

By Breanna SteeleiBerkshires Staff
LANESBOROUGH, Mass. — Berkshire Mall owner JMJ RE Holdings says without a dissolution of the Baker Hill Road District, the potential sale and redevelopment with the mall would fall through.
 
The Select Board last week authorized two of its members to work on a compromise between the JMJ and the road district. The two entities have been at loggerheads over assessments to the district — and the district's purpose.
 
Tim Grogan, development consultant for JMJ RE Holdings, recently responded to iBerkshires' coverage of the meeting, during which the board discussed mediation but took no comments from the public or the mall owners. 
 
Grogan said JMJ has been under purchase contract with real estate developer Cypress Equities since May and has an intention to close in the fall.
 
"We are contractually obligated to deliver the property with the BHRD dissolved. If that does not happen, the mall will not get redeveloped. If the BHRD is not dissolved, the transaction with Cypress cannot close," said Grogan over email. "That is not a position JMJ adopted as leverage. It is the express term of a fully executed purchase and sale agreement. Should the town proceed in a manner that departs from the existing settlement framework, JMJ will evaluate all available claims to protect its contractual rights."
 
The town had initially agreed to seek the dissolution of the district through the Legislature based on JMJ paying $1.1 million to resolve all tax disputes. But that article was pulled from the annual town meeting when town officials said the mall's owners failed to make payment by the deadline. 
 
The road district was established 40 years ago to maintain the Connector Road between Routes 7 and 8 and assess the mall for fire and police protection. The mall closed in 2019 and its various owners since then have sought to redevelop the property. 
 
View Full Story

More Pittsfield Stories