Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-11-21 PowerPoint Presentation (PL-CCI-2024-009) County Council Initiated RELATING TO TELECOMMUNICATION ANTENNAS AND TOWERS PUWOS OF BILL 19� Introduces standards and application requirements that prioritize the careful design, siting and maintenance of telecommunication infrastructure to minimize visual and operational impacts, enhance safety, and ensure adherence to federal and local regulations. PROPOSED ANVENDNVEN I S The proposed amendments include, but are not limited to, the following specific changes: • Amends the definition of "Telecommunication Antennas" and creates a new definition of "Telecommunication Towers"; • Creates additional Plan Approval application requirements for telecommunication antennas and towers; • Creates additional standards for telecommunication antennas and towers, including increased setbacks and an order of priority for siting antennas and towers; and • Removes the requirement to secure a Use Permit prior to establishing a telecommunication antenna and tower and adds telecommunication antennas and towers as a permitted use by right in RS, RD, RM, RCX, RA, FA, A, IA, and O zoning districts. With this change, telecommunication towers and antennas will be permitted in all zoning districts by right. The following points regarding Bill 194 are PLANNIN particularly significant and warrant careful consideration: D PARTM NT • Excessive Requirements; • Enforcement and jurisdiction Issues; CONC RNS • Use of Private Consultants; and • Prioritization for Siting Towers PLANNING D PT ANALYSIS The following proposed section of Bill 194 is excessive: Proposed Change: • (1) A plot plan showing the location of the proposed antenna or tower[;] and all buildings and uses within three hundred feet thereof,' Planning Director Concerns: Bill 194s requirement to provide a site plan displaying all buildings and uses within 300 feet o the subject parcel is excessive. A detailed rationale or includingall nearby buildings and their current uses has not been y provided, therefore, the Planning Director does not support this requirement. PLANNING D PT ANALYSIS The following proposed sections of Bill 194 exceed Zoning authority: Proposed Change: Ed Ct 'te►mrr�nt frnm the Codornl GnmmUniGntinnc Gnmmiccinn thnt nch �mm�linns-;e,-e� ]A re ort re ared b a person who is licensed in the State ot Howai'i as a professionol electrical en ineer certirying that the proposed use complies with all applicable standards and regulations, including those related to radio frequency emissions, of the Federal Communications Commission and the State ot Hawai'i Planning Director Concerns: • FCC already regulates RF emissions, additional report is redundant. • Places responsibility on planners, who lack technical expertise to review technical engineering reports. • This could conflict with federal law, as local governments cannot impose stricter RF standards than the FCC. PLANNING D PT ANALYSIS The following proposed sections of Bill 194 exceed Zoning authority: PROPOSED SECTION 4(6) PROPOSED SECTION ' -T4(12) Should be governed by the County Building Should be governed by the County Flood Code Code PROPOSED SECTION 25-244( 1 PROPOSED SECTION 4(13) Should be governed by the County Fire Code Addresses maintenance requirements that would not fall under the scope of the Zoning Code. Should be governed by the State Deportment POPOgFn 1qFrT10K1 79_4.1 (i)(3) & (4) of Health regulations Pertoin more to operotionol and engineering standards that ore typicolly governed by building codes or electricol regulations. PLANNING D PT ANALYSIS The following proposed section of Bill 194 request the use of private consultants: Z opposed Change: The director may engage a private consultant to inspect and determine whether the Pro posed use violates an a licable standard o the Federal Communications Commission, provided that the time during which the private consultant is so engaged shall not count toward the time limit set forth in subsection (e). Planning Director Concerns: • Engaging private consultants may significantly raise costs for the County, creating unnecessary financial burdens. • The current wording suggests that the consultant's determination occurs after Plan Approval, at which point the next step is securing a building permit and constructing Me tower. • It would be more logical to hire a consultant before Final Plan Approval rather than afterward. • Relying on private consultants could introduce delays in the approval process, leading to lengthy and unpredictable timelines for applicants that may not occur within the 60-day approval timefrome under HRS. PLANNING D PT ANALYSIS The following proposed section of Bill 194 requires tower siting prioritizations: Z posed Change: elecommunication antennas and towers shall be sited in accordance with the following order of priority. • (1)On building sites with existing telecommunication antennas or towers; • 00n industrial zoned lands; • QW1 other lands, exclusive of industrial zoned lands and residential zoned lands; and • (4)Residential zoned lands. Planningg Director Concerns: • Unclear how staff should prioritize applications across zoning districts. • Lacks guidance on whether applicants must analyze unviable lower-priority sites. • Uncertain if staff must deny applications for underserved areas without proper zoning or suggest alternative sites. • Prioritization could delay permitting, exceeding the 60-day approval timefrome. • Enforcement of this section remains undefined. • Extensive plan approval requirements exceed land use and zoning expertise. • Imposing these requirements could create an excessive regulatory burden, hindering telecommunication infrastructure deployment. R VI W OF • The bill's design requirements the siting prioritization do not allow for flexibility needed BILL 19 to serve areas with the highest demand. • This inflexibility may lead to impractical outcomes due to the County's diverse topography and development patterns. POTENTIAL CONFLICTS WITH STATE LAW • Could cause unnecessary delays and compliance challenges with Hawaii Revised Statutes Section 46-89. COMPARISON TO PLANNING DEPARTMENT INITIATED BILL PD Initiated Bill Removal of a Use Permit Requirement Removal of a Use Permit Requirement Plot plan showing the location of the proposed A plot plan showing the location on the building antenna or tower[;] and all building and uses site of the proposed antenna or tower; within three hundred feet thereof; Section 25-2-74(5): A report prepared by a person Section 25-2-74(4): A statement from the Federal who is licensed in the State of Hawaii as a Communications Commission that the application professional electrical engineer certifying that the complies with the regulations of the Commission proposed use complies with all applicable or a statement that no such compliance is standards and regulations, including those related necessary. to radio frequency emissions, of the Federal Communications Commission and the State of Hawaii. COMPARISON TO PLANNING DEPARTMENT INITIATED BILL . , Section 25-4-12(a): A telecommunication Section 25-4-12(a): A telecommunication antenna or tower shall be antenna or tower, including any co- permitted in all zoning districts; provided that the antenna, tower, and location of a new antenna upon an its use are not hazardous or dangerous to the surrounding area and the existing tower, shall be permitted in any director has issued plan approval for such use. Co-location of antennas zoning district, provided that the director upon an existing privately owned tower and expansion of related has issued plan approval for such use. support equipment within the project site is permitted and encouraged provided the director issued plan approval for the existing tower. The Section 25-2-74(10): Co-location ground lease areas of co-locating carriers must be adjacent to the documentation. existing ground lease area and not located within the open yard setback areas, and the co-location must not result in a `substantial change', as defined by the Federal Communication Commission. Co-location that results in a `substantial change' to the tower height or ground lease area, as defined by the Federal Communication Commission, requires issuance of a new plan approval. COMPARISON TO PLANNING DEPARTMENT INITIATED BILL Setbacks: Setbacks: • 120% of tower height from property line. 120% of tower height from property line. • 1000 feet of any property line of any hospital, 1200 feet from any nearby residences and school, or residential district. schools. • Telecommunication towers located within the V, CV, CG, CV, MCX, ML, MG, CDH zoning districts shall be exempt from setbacl< requirements. Section 25-2-74 (11): Decommissioning plan. Section 25-4-12 (j): Abandonment of the tower. KEY CONTRAST: PROPOSED BILL VS PLANNING DEPARTMENT INITIATED BILL • Section 25-2-74(2): Elevation Drawings. • Section 25-2-74(6): Electrical Drawings. • Section 25-2-74(7): Fire Safety Requirements. Section 25-4-12(f): Private Consultant • Section 25-2-74(8): Statement from State-DOH Requirement. for noise levels. • Section 25-4-12(g): Radio Frequency Exposure • Section 25-2-74(9): Statement on possible Levels. interference with County's radio system. • Section 25-4-12(h): Prioritization Levels. • Section 25-2-74(12): Analysis of Soil Conditions Section 25-4-12(i): Design Requirements. and Flood Hazard. Section 25-4-12(j): Underground Requirements. • Section 25-2-74(13): Maintenance Plan. • Section 25-4-12(k): Restriction of Outdoor • Section 25-2-74(14): Copy of required licenses. Facilities. • Section 25-2-74(15): Declaration will be • Section 25-4-12(I): Public Liability Insurance. operational in 2 years. • Section 25-2-74(16): Light Fixtures. PLANNING DIRECTOR ' S RECOMMENDATI0N The Planning Director recommends that the Planning Commissions send an unfavorable recommendation of Bill 194 to the County Council as currently written.