Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Telecommunications topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Draft telecom code would reorganize siting rules and shift some approvals to hearing examiner; council urged to review packet
Summary
Staff presented a reorganization of Normandy Park’s telecom code to clarify definitions and siting/design standards for macro and small wireless facilities; the draft would route macro-tower approvals to the hearing examiner and make many small-cell permits administrative, prompting council discussion about resident notice, health concerns, and loss of direct council review.
City planning staff reviewed a proposed rewrite of the city telecom code that separates macro wireless facilities from small wireless facilities, codifies federal-size definitions, and establishes new siting and design standards for facilities in the public right-of-way.
"It's really a kind of a reorganization of the existing code," Jeremy, who led the presentation, said. He described moving impervious-surface maximums into the general development table for the LID ordinance in a separate item and explained that the telecom rewrite (Ordinance 1088) would specify when engineered plans are needed and where equipment and antennas could be placed.
A notable procedural change described by staff is that approvals for larger macro towers would go to the hearing examiner rather than the full council; small wireless facilities that meet the code would be reviewed administratively. Staff said this approach aligns permit review with objective code standards and federal definitions (for example, a small wireless facility limited to 50 feet and modest equipment cabinets). Jeremy said the rewrite is intended to reflect current technology and deployment strategies.
Councilors and members of staff asked about resident notification and the ability for councilors to respond to constituent concerns. One councilor pointed out that hearing examiners decide on code compliance rather than political or emotional concerns, and another warned that code changes could create litigation risk if code provisions are later changed after approvals have been issued.
Council members also raised public concern about small-cell facilities sited near homes and referenced past protests at City Hall over a previous tower proposal. Staff emphasized that macro towers are unlikely in Normandy Park due to return-on-investment considerations for providers, and that most near-term deployments would be smaller pole-mounted facilities in the right-of-way.
Staff requested that council members review the packet carefully before the next hearing and flagged that the Planning Commission’s recommended standards and an alternatives analysis from industry respondents would be included.
The council did not take final action at the study session; the ordinance will return for further review and public hearing.
