2024-11-18 Debra Greene - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Second, he stated "the current wording suggests that the consultant's determination occurs after Plan Approval" but this claim is unfounded as the language refers to "the proposed use" which indicates this option is part of an application process and does not occur after Plan Approval. Even if the language needs to be tweaked a bit, that hardly constitutes a "significant concern" that merits an unfavorable recommendation. Third, the Director stated that "it would be more logical to hire a consultant before Final Plan Approval rather than afterward" but, again, the language in this Section refers to "the proposed use" which indicates this option is part of an application process and does not occur after Plan Approval. Fourth, the Director stated that "relying on private consultants could introduce delays in the approval process" that may violate the 60-day timeframe mandated by HRS 4689. Again, this claim is unfounded and alarmist because nothing in Bill 194 includes "relying on private consultants". The choice to engage a private consultant is mentioned only once, is optional, and is at the discretion of the Director. 5) Regarding Proposed 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 Director stated five concerns. First:The Director's stated concern is 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 is this even a concern for the Director? 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 the ordinance.