WASHINGTON-The Federal Communications Commission on June 9 proposed a streamlined process for siting towers in historic areas.
“The industry is very happy that this has finally come out after working on it for 18 months,” said John Clark, an attorney specializing in tower environmental policy.
The notice of proposed rulemaking seeks comment on a programmatic agreement that has been negotiated among the wireless industry-both carriers and tower companies-the Advisory Council for Historic Preservation, the National Council of State Historic Preservation Officers and the FCC. Negotiations began in 2001.
While Clark said the programmatic agreement introduced “innovative and ground-breaking policies,” he cautioned that many of the hard decisions have been put off. The NPRM seeks comment on those issues where the negotiating groups could not come to consensus.
The programmatic agreement follows on a similar document negotiated for colocated antennas and incorporates many of the same procedures.
Colocation is the preferred method of siting wireless facilities, but sitings are still subject to review and sometimes remain unpopular among local municipalities.
For example, Suffolk County, N.Y., last week approved a plan to site stealth and collocated towers on park land. The county executive vetoed the proposal last month, but that was reversed last week by the county legislative body as a way to make money off those who may want to build facilities on park land.
In another case, Verizon Wireless this week will plead its case before the Connecticut Siting Council to place antennas on top of a 130-foot utility tower in Glastonbury.
Connecticut could be the site later on for a fight over a tower AT&T Wireless Services Inc. has indicated it wants to build in Warren. And opponents may have some feathery friends. A pair of endangered hawks is nesting near the site of the proposed tower. While AT&T Wireless has not applied to site the 150-foot tower, it has indicated in past submissions that it wants to do so. By choosing that area to nest, the hawks could effectively change AT&T Wireless’ plans.
Another new tower has been proposed by U.S. Cellular Corp. in Montgomery County, Va., but the county rejected the 240-foot structure for aesthetic reasons. The Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association joined in an appeal argued earlier this month in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit.
“Aesthetic decisions are, by their nature, inherently arbitrary. As the district court correctly recognized, Virginia law forbids localities to make land-use decisions based solely on aesthetic considerations. And, as the district court properly ruled, the county’s decision in this case violated that rule and thus violated the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Allowing the rejection of telecommunications infrastructure proposals based solely on aesthetic considerations would undermine the [telecom act’s] intent to enable the rapid development of adequate nationwide access to wireless telecom services,” said CTIA. “Beauty lies in the eye of the beholder. … Many may agree, as the district court observed, that no design for a telecom tower is attractive in the absolute sense. Perhaps a 240-foot lattice tower is something only an engineer could love.”
