decaturtxcowboy wrote:
> 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.

That makes no sense. If you can't block a tower because it doesn't look
good, why are carriers bothering to camouflage the towers. I could not
find any section in the TCA that talks about anything other than
forbidding banning towers due to EMI issues.