AGENDA #5c
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Town Council
FROM: W. Calvin Horton, Town Manager
SUBJECT: Response to Petition from ClearSky Networks
DATE: January 26, 2004
This memorandum provides a response to a petition from ClearSky Networks regarding the process for review of antennas associated with their wireless internet service. The petition was received on November 10, 2003, and is attached (Attachment 1). We recommend no action on this petition.
The petition “requests the Mayor and members of the Town Council consider making wireless Internet providers exempt from the cellular and telecom regulations in Chapel Hill and grants Accessory Use Status to these service providers.”
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
Chapel Hill has in place an administrative policy establishing guidelines to determine if an application for accessory antenna can be administratively approved. The administrative policy was endorsed by the Town Council on November 10, 1999. A copy of the 1999 policy document is attached (Attachment 2).
Town staff uses these guidelines regularly to determine if an application for accessory antenna can be administratively approved. If a proposed facility represents an accessory use, as described in the guidelines, the application can be reviewed and approved administratively.
If the proposal does not match the guidelines’ description of “accessory use,” the application cannot be reviewed as an “accessory use” and would only be allowed if permitted as a principal use or if allowed with approval of a Special Use Permit by the Town Council. These guidelines reflect the Town Council’s guidance on these issues and, in our opinion, offer a procedural advantage to the concept of adding new telecommunication facilities in a visually unobtrusive manner.
If an application for antenna is determined to be unobtrusive, in accordance with the guidelines, an administrative Zoning Compliance Permit is issued. In those circumstances were the terms of a Special Use Permit require Community Design Commission review and approval of exterior elevations and site lighting, the proposed change is referred to the Commission for approval as well.
We believe the Council adopted guidelines are beneficial. The petition appears to be requesting exemption from the review process. We do not believe an exemption from this review would be appropriate given the varied nature of antenna requests.
RECOMMENDATION
We recommend no action at this time. We believe that the existing policy for this type of activity is working well. These types of antennas are currently defined as accessory based both on the Land Use Management Ordinance as well as the 1999 administrative policy. Administrative review is currently required and, for properties encumbered by a Special Use Permit or Modification, the Community Design Commission is required to endorse exterior changes.
ATTACHMENTS