2014-06-05HEARINGTRANSCRIPT-CELLCODBAVERIZONUSE14-046

Home

an industrial setting, and by that, I mean a 105-foot tower windowless buildings, air conditioning units outside, back-up generators, cables, etc. Exhibit 4 is the Findings, the document is entitled “Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision and Order” and this is for a previous Verizon telecommunications tower application back from 2005. Our situation is very similar to Verizon’s previously proposed tower, and this was in the Orchidland Subdivision. On Page 14, if you don’t mind turning to Page 14, under item, I’m sorry, it’s under impacts on surrounding properties, item 2, “visually, the proposed tower will also be 200 feet away from the Pa’s home, across the street, from which most of the tower will be visible. The tower will also be visible from the Alatan home, partially screened by trees, but only 63 feet away. Intervenor specifically objected to the visual impact of the proposed tower. It is well established that even under [a] substantial evidence review such as under the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996, land use decisions based on aesthetic concerns can be valid, and that aesthetic harmony is a ‘prominent goal’ of land use codes. The Commission is entitled to make an aesthetic judgment as long as it is grounded in the specifics of the case, not just an objection to towers in general.” I feel that applies to us here today. Exhibit 5 is an excerpt from a Planning Commission hearing transcript dated I think it’s February 3, 2005, but I believe the document should have been dated 2006, under Yuen at the bottom of the page, I just want to read a part of it again. “The Hearings Officer seems to think that people’s, the fact that somebody doesn’t like the way something looks built next to them is to be completely disregarded in the special permit process. That’s totally, totally, 100 percent wrong. He says that it doesn’t affect the surrounding property, it only affects the feelings of the people who live on the surrounding property. Almost everything we say -. We have to consider the commonly held opinions of people as to what they like to have in their neighborhood [sic] neighboring property. You know, there’s a general feeling, I don’t [sic] think, it’s [not] an odd-ball feeling shared by only a very few people that you would rather not look at, say, a 100- foot [high cell] tower, 100-foot high cell tower right out your back yard. I mean, that doesn’t mean that you wouldn’t approve it, it doesn’t mean that it couldn’t have a special permit. But it is, that opinion is entitled to protection in the process of a special permit.” And that’s quoted from Mr. Yuen who was the Planning Director prior to Mr. Kanuha. I understand Planning Directors differ, but he did feel strongly about aesthetics being a pretty important concern. I realize that the Code has now changed and this is a Use Permit application, not a Special Permit but I still feel we should be entitled to protection as Mr. Yuen felt 100 percent sure of. Exhibit 6 is the exhibits—when I though the Exhibit, the monopine would look at in front of the property, I understand it’s not a monopine as Ms. Nishimoto said, but that’s the only tower I could cut and paste and put onto this picture. And, the reason I put it in front of that back house there is because there would be no reference as far as high the tower was if I just put it in the open field, so that’s why I put it so you could see it next to that existing structure there. So, in the current location, it’s actually further toward this house than it should be. It’s not located on the correct property, but I just needed a place of reference. 30 EXHIBIT F