2024-12-02 Debra Green #3 & #4 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

5) Bill 194 Section 25-4-12(h) This Section describes tower siting prioritization. It says: (h) Telecommunication antennas and towers shall be sited in accordance with the following order of priority: (1) On building sites with existing telecommunication antennas or towers; (2) On industrial zoned lands; (3) All other lands, exclusive of industrial zoned lands and residential zoned lands; and (4) Residential zoned lands. The former Director stated five concerns. First: His stated concern was that it's "unclear how staff should prioritize applications across zoning districts", which is confounding since the proposed Section describes exactly how applications should be prioritized. Second: He stated it "lacks guidance on whether applicants must analyze unviable lower-priority sites."This statement is baffling. Why would an applicant need guidance about analyzing unviable lower-priority sites? Why was this even a concern? And even if it was a valid concern, telecommunications corporations have endless resources at their disposal. They are free to do any and all analyzing of unviable, low-priority sites if they so choose without that being stipulated in an ordinance. Third: The former Director stated it's "uncertain if staff must deny applications for underserved areas without proper zoning or suggest alternative sites", a concern that could easily be remedied. Fourth: He stated that "prioritization could delay permitting, exceeding the 60-day approval timeframe" but he gave no rationale for what could cause such delays, so at this time that claim is purely speculative. Five: He stated that "Enforcement remains undefined." If Planning is doing its job, they will adhere to the prioritization and no enforcement would be required. Was the Former Director suggesting planners may not adhere to the law and need to be policed, in which case all of the provisions would need enforcement, not just this one? Finally, the former Director's proposed ordinance exempts eight zoning districts from setbacks. This is of grave concern as several of those zones have residential and schools nearby and even mixed in, so those zones should not be exempted from setbacks. Further, his ordinance requires a 1200-foot setback for residential and schools and, given the proximity issue, this could potentially create a planning nightmare in trying to differentiate the setbacks versus exemptions. Such exemptions could delay permitting and exceed the 60-day approval timeframe mandated by HRS 4689. To avoid this