John Weinstein of Building Inspections presented a review of antenna design elements on Oct. 14, focusing on camouflage (stealth) options, examples from other Texas cities, legal constraints, and anticipated technological change.

Weinstein said Garland adopted its most recent antenna ordinance in March 2025 and that the ordinance encourages stealth installations (for example, rooftop, building-mounted or architecturally integrated antennas) and colocation to limit the number of separate support structures. He reviewed how other cities regulate camouflage structures: Conroe prohibits towers in residential areas and permits monopines under certain conditions; Corpus Christi allows monopoles up to 85 feet with a special permit and restricts self-supporting monopoles in historic overlay districts.

Weinstein said camouflage solutions (monopines, steeples, clock towers) require ongoing maintenance (painting, bark/foliage replacement on artificial trees) and can be costly; he cited Conroe's 2016 monopine cost (about $38,000) and staff findings that prices have tripled in recent years. The staff review found Garland's ordinance allows antennas on utility structures and permits stealth designs but needs explicit standards if the city wishes to require appearance or camouflage as a condition for approvals.

Weinstein raised a forward-looking point: 6G technology is expected to roll out beginning in the early 2030s and may rely on many smaller, lower-profile antenna elements that can be integrated into buildings or vehicles, reducing the need for tall stealth support structures. Several council members said that future technology makes imposing some near-term restrictions less attractive; they emphasized balancing resident concerns about large visible towers with the risk of limiting future technology deployment. Weinstein and the committee discussed adding an ordinance provision requiring removal of obsolete equipment as new systems are installed.

Committee members asked whether curbs on appearance would delay deployment; staff said standards should be clearly written and nondiscriminatory across providers. The committee asked staff to return with any recommended ordinance language only if it would not create barriers to future upgrades and if it complied with federal and state constraints.