|
permit applications, we have looked at the availability of other properly zoned or otherwise
<br />usable sites, just as a matter of looking at the nature of theneed and changing trends, things like
<br />this, which are relevant to special permit decisions. So there is some relevance that should be
<br />looked at in the specific circumstances of each case. And you may want to ask the parties for
<br />their positions on that as well.
<br />ALAMEDA:Commissioner Graham, would you, we do have the opportunity to ask the
<br />parties direct questions just so that we can make a better decision on this application. So,
<br />Commissioner Graham?
<br />GRAHAM:No, I dont think I want to go further and extend it. But I guess the short
<br />of what youre saying is that one part of the condition which relates to needs is the hook we have
<br />in our criteria, one about needs, huh?
<br />ALAMEDA:Mr.Torigoe?
<br />TORIGOE:Yeah,ifyoulookatyourRule6.3,youknow,thatlistoffiveorsix,
<br />6.3(b)(5),andthentheres(A),(B),(C),(D,(E),(F),(G),thatsonpages2to3ofyourRule6.
<br />Theres a, for instance on top of page 3, one of the criteria you should look at is Unusual
<br />conditions, trends, and needs have arisen since the district boundaries and regulations were
<br />established.
<br />GRAHAM:And how does that relate to an alternative site, I mean if the need is there
<br />to put in wireless communication?
<br />TORIGOE:Yeah, you know, its a very site, well, its a very application fact intensive
<br />inquiry. You know, basically, if theres no place else, if theres a great need for this and theres
<br />no place else, then that should weigh into your decision.
<br />GRAHAM:I see. So the need is actually not the general need of getting wireless
<br />service but the need of using this piece of property to do it?
<br />TORIGOE:I think that would be one way to look at it, yeah.
<br />GRAHAM:Thank you.
<br />ALAMEDA:Fellow Commissioners, other questions for our parties or for our Corp.
<br />Counsel? Commissioner Graham and then Commissioner Siracusa.
<br />GRAHAM:I have a question for the Planning Department. And the question that I
<br />have will sound more like a criticism so Im hoping to get a response that gives me some
<br />understanding. And Im speaking of the County of Hawaii Planning Directors proposed
<br />Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommendation. After reading the Planning
<br />Directors proposed Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommendation, after reading
<br />the transcript, it seemed like the intervenor spoke of a number of concerns, like property value,
<br />visual intrusion, the possibility of the tower falling over, the alternatives that were available. But
<br />when I read this report from the Planning Directors proposed Findings of Fact, I dont see even
<br />any reference to any of that stuff in here, which kind of, you know, struck me strongly. Its sort
<br />of, you know, when were serving the public we can disagree, but to ignore feels to me that
<br />thats kind of, you know, dismissive in a way that I dont like to see us be. So the only thing that
<br />I saw in this whole recommendation from the Planning Director was Conclusion of Law 4 where
<br />they flatly say the desired use will not adversely affect surrounding properties. But I didnt see
<br />8EXHIBIT B
<br />
<br />
|