2014-06-05HEARINGTRANSCRIPT-CELLCODBAVERIZONUSE14-046

Home

MIYASATO: Mr. Inaba, would you present your case? INABA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for hearing this contested case for Cellco Partnerships proposed tower. My name’s Daryl Inaba. I represent myself, my wife, and my son. Exhibit 1 is Hawai‘i County Ordinance No. 10 17 or Bill 186, and my understanding is in 2007, the State Legislature passed Act 171 allowing construction and operation of wireless communication antennas as permitted uses in the State Land Use Agricultural District without a Special Permit. Surrounding owners were no longer able to express their concerns regarding antennas and towers within their immediate neighborhood. I’m aware of a Mr. Alfred Souza, who owned property is Ainaloa, and he was unfortunately caught off guard and a tower was approved without him being able to voice his concerns at a Commission meeting like this here today. The purpose of 10 17 was to require wireless telecommunication antennas and towers to obtain approval for Use Permit from this very Planning Commission. My understanding is that Ordinance 10 17 was Planning Director approved which I’m hoping was to protect Hawai‘i County residents and prevent people from being in a situation like Mr. Souza was. This Use Permit process is my only protection that I feel I have. Hawai‘i County Code Section 25-2-60 to 67 which is Exhibit 2, that’s basically the section of the Code pertaining to Use Permits. Use Permits are permits for certain permitted uses in zoning districts which require special attention to ensure that the uses will neither unduly burden public agencies to provide public services nor cause substantial adverse impacts upon the surrounding community. I’m here to protect my family’s interest in four properties located across the street from the proposed Verizon tower. My concerns consist of three areas. One is according to Section 25-2-65(2). One of the criteria for granting this permit is and I quote, “The granting of the proposed use shall not be materially detrimental to the public welfare nor cause substantial, adverse impact to the community’s character, to surrounding properties.” This application does not satisfy that criteria, and (2) I feel that there are discrepancies in Cellco Partnership’s Use Permit application dated 12/11/13, and there are discrepancies in Cellco Partnership’s Statement of Issues dated 5/8/14. First of all, I’d like to state for the record that I’m not opposed to towers in general, just the specifics of this case. My Exhibit 3 is a tax map for 1-6-102. The red parcel is the subject parcel Verizon is proposing the tower. The yellow ones are additional properties Verizon is purchasing. I guess they have an option to purchase those additional parcels. And the four blue ones are families owned, parcels owned by my family. The reasons I feel Cellco Partnership, the Use Permit Application No. 14- 046 does not satisfy the County Code, Section 25-2-65 are as follows: (1) I feel there would be a significant visual impact to our properties if a 105-foot tower and related facilities are constructed across the street. This is not regarding an ocean view or a Mauna Loa view or Mauna Kea view. I’m just saying that the tower, a 105-foot tower located right across the street is gonna loom over our property and will be the only thing we’ll see from our front yard and driveway if I build a house there. The tower and related equipment will transform our view into 29 EXHIBIT F