City staff on Monday proposed a targeted revision to Brentwood's wireless communications ordinance aimed at addressing persistent mobile-service gaps on the city's east side.

Under the draft approach staff described, new monopole towers not to exceed 160 feet could be allowed only after an applicant demonstrates deficient service through a propagation study, pays for an independent third-party review of that study, and proposes a location on property owned or leased by a governmental or quasi-governmental entity or by a residential homeowners'association. The plan would preserve the existing three-tier review structure and create a limited subcategory in which the city's planning commission would review camouflage, fall-zone engineering and site screening.

Staff said the 160-foot height is an engineering cap informed by carrier input and local topography rather than an arbitrary number. They said individual sites would be engineered to the minimum height needed for coverage and that carriers generally avoid taller-than-necessary towers because of material and construction costs.

The draft also requires co-location capacity so multiple carriers can place antennas on the same tower, internal wiring in monopoles, disguised designs where feasible (flagpoles, faux trees, flagpoles and other camouflage were shown as examples), certified engineered collapse behavior in lieu of a 110% fall-zone setback, fully screened ground equipment and certified neighborhood notification to property owners within 1,000 feet of the proposed site.

Staff acknowledged federal limits on local review timelines (a so-called federal "shot clock" that can be 90 or 150 days depending on the application) and said the city would aim to comply with federal law while adding the third-party review and public-notice steps. Staff also repeated the city's existing preference to discourage lattice towers and guy‑wired structures and to favor monopoles and disguised mounts where possible.

The presentation identified several local circumstances argued to motivate a change: longstanding coverage holes east of Interstate 65 and Wilson Pike, places with poor in‑building signal where emergency calls and remote work could be impaired, and a near-term operational issue in which a Nolensville Water Utility District water tank that currently carries antennas will be replaced and may require carriers to relocate equipment. Staff said that could prompt earlier carrier applications if the ordinance is adjusted.

Staff proposed a timeline that would begin with placement of the ordinance on the commission's agenda for a first reading in December, a planning commission public hearing in January and a potential second reading later in January, assuming the process moves without substantial delays or additional requests for information.

Commissioners and staff cautioned that any code‑compliant application remains difficult to deny under federal law; they emphasized the proposed rules were intentionally narrow, limited to certain site ownership types and subject to substantial evidentiary requirements and planning commission review so the city could try to fill gaps without authorizing widespread new tower locations.

No formal action was recorded in the meeting transcript; staff said they would return with a draft ordinance and additional details.