WASHINGTON-The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation rejected the government’s argument that towers along scenic highways are the same as large signs and other improvements to increase traffic flow and safety.
“The ACHP must object to the Federal Communications Commission’s effect finding. Our objection is based in part upon the FCC’s own acknowledgement that the tower will introduce visual elements that, while sympathetic to the Taconic State Parkway and its modern uses, would alter views from the parkway in a manner that may diminish the historic integrity of this designed landscape,” wrote ACHP Chairman John L. Nau III. “We do not disagree with the basic premise that transportation corridors and their associated features, such as signage, roadways, and the like evolve over time. However, we would point out that the entire purpose of the process is to ensure that those changes are designed and implemented in a way that fully considers the impacts that they may have on the historic features of the transportation facility.”
Nau sent his letter to FCC Chairman Michael Powell rather than Jeffrey Steinberg, deputy chief of the auctions and spectrum access division of the FCC’s Wireless Telecommunications Bureau. Steinberg sent the original letter to the ACHP last month, saying the wireless bureau had determined that two towers could be built along the TSP without causing any harm. The wireless bureau cited the existence of modern signage and other improvements as evidence for its decision.
The New York State Historic Preservation Officer had refused to allow the towers proposed by Independent Wireless One and America Tower.
The historic preservation process is a bit complex, but essentially a tower owner or carrier must certify that a tower will not harm the historic characteristics of its neighborhood, and because of height, this can extend 2 miles. If the SHPO agrees, the FCC licenses the towers after concluding there are no other objections or issues. But if the SHPO disagrees, the FCC can overrule the SHPO, but it must consult with the ACHP.
Nau asked to meet with Powell, noting that such a meeting had been in the planning stages for months. Nau also asked Powell to inform him of how the FCC plans to proceed.
“Given the gravity of this issue and the need to bring our protracted effort to develop a nationwide programmatic agreement to a successful close, I believe it would be useful if we could schedule the meeting we have been planning since this past summer. I believe it would be most beneficial to discuss this issue and others critical to the FCC’s agenda regarding historic preservation,” wrote Nau. “I believe this is a policy matter of substantial importance and want to exhaust all channels to resolve it to our mutual satisfaction.”
The ball is now in the FCC’s court, said John Clark, an attorney for both applicants. “The FCC has to determine what happens now,” said Clark.
Clark said a federal court ruled against the ACHP when it tried to force agency heads-like Powell-to make the final determination. Now the determination whether there will be historic harm-or adverse effect-can be delegated so Powell does not have to become involved.
Whether Powell will become involved is unclear. A phone call to his office was not returned.
