2009-11-06 TPDtele - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

doing this type of work, been doing planning for telecommunications since 1995. I’ve reviewed this Code change and I’ve also sent it out to all the other consultants that I could think of and asked for their opinion. They wanted to be here today but with this short notice, I received the notice of this being on the agenda on Tuesday, they couldn’t make it and wanted me to ask if there was any way where we could continue this on to your next meeting to give them an opportunity to come. If that’s not possible, I did get, take notes from the people I spoke to and I’ll go over that with you. I don’t think any of the carriers have any issue to providing some sort of public notice for a new tower. That just seems to be common sense. The Code includes, it says an antennae or tower shall be permitted provided that its use is not hazardous or dangerous to surrounding area and it has a use permit. The County and the Commission has typically tried to encourage co-location on the different towers. We don’t want to see towers all over the island. So the recommendation would be to maybe allow antennas in these areas as long as they are attached to an existing structure. We felt, when I read that Act 171, I thought that that’s what it was saying. I thought it was saying that it allowed antennas on any existing structure. But if you wanted a new tower you’d still have to come in for a permit; and that made sense to me. So if you’re trying to promote co- location on an existing structure, if you could make more of an easier path for the carriers to take that route, and trying to make that work as opposed to erecting new towers, it just makes sense to me that you would want to do that. Also, the way this appears to be written, if a tower has a special permit on it that was granted and antennas were added, if you were to want to add additional antennas to it, you would have to come back and get a use permit. And I don’t know if you all want to go back and rehash towers that are already existing just to bring it into conformance. WOODWARD: If I might just address that. We have in the past, when we’ve given use permits for antennas, stated you can have up to “x” number of antennas. And the only thing that would require another permit is if you’re talking about a taller tower or something of that nature, rather than putting more, actual antennas on it. That’s just my understanding. Is that correct? LEITHEAD TODD: Yeah, and I actually have no objection to an amendment that would allow co-location on an existing tower to be a permitted use so long as there was, you know, it was included in the plan approval, you know, so that we could be assured that the tower could support the additional weight or the additional structure. METTLER: That’s right. There still is that. But I’m not talking about just towers. I’m talking about any structure. I’m talking about a building, or windmill, anything. So -. IWASHITA: Can I, Mr. Chair? WOODWARD: Yes, Commissioner Iwashita. IWASHITA: I guess the way I read the amendment is that a use permit, something that this body would have to approve, is only required in those designated Residential and Ag areas. 4 EXHIBIT C