2003-07-18 tnextel - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

whatÓs the technical name for them. ThereÓs a lot of vegetation in the area; thereÓs not that much of a roadside view of it. The view from a car of the site is fairly brief because of how the road cuts are and how you go into the turn. And, finally, thereÓs, there are the poles, the anchors for the electrical poles are pretty close to it and visually rather similar or actually somewhat larger. Had they come in with a regular lattice-type tower, that might have ended up being a, carrying a number of antennas, I would personally think this would be a very bad site for it; and I would have opposed it. I do have some questions that IÓll get into, and letÓs go through some other questions. But I do have some questions about the suitability of the site that we approved about six months ago in Laupahoehoe, which I think is either that blue dot or that red dot on the map here and which is maybe a mile to a mile-and-a-half from -. built yet but we approved the permit from American Tower for a 160-foot tower at that location. But I think if we could go through some of the, if the Commissioners have some questions and maybe we can hear from the public, and then I further questions about that, about using that tower site. FUJIKAWA:Commissioner Springer, go ahead. SPRINGER:In that regard, then, Mr. Director, when you receive an application such as this one coming before you, do you take into account also those sites which have been approved for antenna development but have not yet been constructed? YUEN:WeÓd have to take it into account, and then we have tried to find why theyÓre not intending to use that site. And it would be of interest whether the person that applied to build the site is still going to go forward with the site. If theyÓre going to abandon the site, then we would take that into account. But if weÓre going to allow another site based on the idea that one site is going to be abandoned, then maybe we would want to see that permit voided for the other site. FUJIKAWA:Are there other questions from the Commissioners? Go a Mrs. Springer. SPRINGER:It would seem, during Commissioner GiffinÓs time, during her chairmanship, there was this discussion of looking at the island as a whole. And I think in the General Plan discussions this came up about whether to have, there was a suggestion to have sub-zones that were developed, a network of sub-zones for communication tower development. And it seems as though this might be an issue that would be worthwhile for the Commission to develop perhaps in the Because weÓve considered the notion of co-location, but then weÓve run into the matter of visual impacts and community sense of aesthetics; and there may be Contested Cases that draw out the time of the application period where usefulness is diminished. But without opportunities for co-location, we can then anticipate proliferation of shorter towers and perhaps a clustering of them. I donÓt know how my colleagues feel about this, but sometimes I feel as though IÓm having this discussion in a vacuum. Although we have the dots on the map that indicate where other applications have been made and have been 12