2009-02-19 TCROWN - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

HAYASHI: Thank you, Mr. Chair. This particular application was heard as a nd contested case hearing on January 22. The contested case hearing was closed, and at that meeting a motion was made to deny the application. That motion did not pass; the vote was actually three to four, with Commissioner Alameda not being present at that meeting. We now have all eight Commissioners here today. The transcript and whatever information on the application was forwarded to the Commissioners as well as Commissioner Alameda for his review. So first, at this time we’d like to ask whether Mr. Alameda has read the record and whether he is ready to proceed with the voting. ALAMEDA: Yes, I have, and I’m ready to proceed with the voting. nd HAYASHI: Thank you. With that, just going back to the meeting of January 22, at that meeting after the vote was taken, and since there are no motion to carry one way or the th other, the Chair declared that the meeting be continued to the February 20 meeting; at that time th it was scheduled for February 20. The next day it was discovered that the Chair would not be at th the meeting, so we rescheduled the meeting to February 19, which is today. We did send a rd notice to the applicant as well as to the intervenor, Mr. McCullough, dated January 23, the day after the Planning Commission meeting. The letter was sent to both the applicant and the th intervenor on January 26 by certified mail. And that letter indicated, and we highlighted the date in bold to be Thursday, February 19, 2009. Yesterday, we received a call -. Since we hadn’t heard from Mr. McCullough, the staff called Mr. McCullough to inquire as to whether he received the notice. He indicated that he did not pick up the certified mail that was waiting for him at the Post Office, and the reason he gave was that the line was too long for him to pick up the certified mail. And again, I’d like to emphasize that the letter was sent out certified on th January 26. This morning he also called the staff back in Hilo, and indicated that he will not be in attendance at today’s meeting, and he also indicated that a couple members of the public will be attending the meeting tomorrow at 10:30. So that’s the story that we received back to the staff back in Hilo. With that, we’ll leave it up to the Commission as to what you want to decide to do – proceed with the voting or whatever you need to do. WATANABE: Okay, thank you. Yes, Mr. Woodward. WOODWARD: Well, I’ll just make a comment first, and then I’m ready to make a motion. Mr. McCullough bought the property with the existing cell tower in place, and now he’s raising concerns about cell towers; well, when he bought the property, it was already there. And he has made numerous remarks that he hasn’t been adequately notified; well, obviously he has been adequately notified. And the advantage of changing this from an 80-foot tower, wooden monopole with steel guy wires going all over the place, to a 120-foot steel monopole with no guy wires, the whole question of visual impact, I think, is moot; having all these guy wires going all over the place is a lot more distracting than having another 40 feet on top with no guy wires. So I would move that in regard to -. WATANABE: Mr. Woodward -. WOODWARD: Do we have more comments? WATANABE: No, no, no. EXHIBIT B 2