SMS wrote:
> 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?

As in communities can't block a tower for the sole reason that it
doesn't look good or fit in with the neighborhood. That's why there
is a growing business in camouflaging the towers.

Radio Mobile Times magazine had a good write up on this and how
the carriers are fighting back. Communities learned they can't
play the radiation health issues and look to see if the tower
site might visually impact a designated historic area.

I say "visually impact" as the carriers know it would be a hard
fight to place a tower within such an area, so communities try
it from the other direction. Case in point, there was an historic
area within sight of a planned tower site - the FCC determined
to visually see the tower from the historic aera, it required
looking through trees and power lines. Tower site was approved.