decaturtxcowboy wrote:
> SMS wrote:
>> Contrary to what the carriers try to tell planning commissions, there
>> is no requirement to approve a tower, but you can't not approve it for
>> the wrong reasons, it has to be the right reasons.
>
> The current landscape (pardon the pun) is that is cannot be denied
> for alleged heath issues or cosmetic reasons. It can be denied under
> historic preservation reasons, so they go with excluded pubic
> easments.


Hmm, what section of the TCA lists cosmetic reasons?

I found the RF section, "Title 47 of the United States Code, Section
332, (7)((iv) states that, "No state or local government or
instrumentality thereof may regulate the placement, construction, and
modification of personal wireless service facilities on the basis of the
environmental effects of radio frequency emissions to the extent that
such facilities comply with the Commission's regulations concerning such
emissions."

In an case, there is wide leeway in the definition of "cosmetic." If a
municipality is too restrictive, then the carrier may be able to seek
relief through the courts, but the carriers typically don't want to go
that far, as it is bad for their business and for their image.

It's important for neighborhoods that are seeking to block towers, to
not bring up the RF issue in their arguments against the towers, so the
carrier can not challenge the decision in court.