2016-04-07 Hearing Transcript - Cellco Partnership USE 16-061

Home

specifically to Subsection No. 1 where it says that an applicant's interest must be clearly distinguishable from that of the general public and that under Number 4 that even though they did not have an interest different than the public, that the proposed action will cause them actual or threatened injury. I think it's clearly indicated on the visual picture behind me where the cell tower is located on the mauka portion of Road 3 or 3rd Avenue, I believe. And, it's in the back of a one -acre long parcel, and the requested intervenor's property is makai of that on Road 2, and there's a, you know, a significant amount of space between the proposed tower site and the applicant's property, the Intervenor's property. I'm kind of confused as to what view, diminishing of what view the applicant is identifying, because like I said, this parcel is makai of the proposed tower site. Secondly, when you look at the two claims that were made by the Intervenor, he said in his application is (1) that the project is an eyesore and (2) it decreases the value of the land around. - think those two requirements or those two concerns do not raise to the level of it being unique or distinguishable from that of the general public. I would proffer that the properties that are adjacent to the proposed site would have more of a claim or at the very least, the same type of claim. So, these concerns raised by the Intervenor do not distinguish him from anybody else in the area of the proposed tower site. Second, there's again, the proposed actual harm to the Intervenor is lacking as well. I haven't seen any demonstration. Property values? I would even argue that the incorporation of a cell tower in an area that is underserved for cell phone connection and provide the surrounding neighborhood the opportunity to utilize cell phone service would maybe arguably enhance the value of the area. And, I haven't seen any information to discredit that provided by the applicant. So, again, the County requests that the application for intervention be denied for lack of standing. HEAUKULANL Thank you, Mr. Brilhante. Commissioners, do you have questions for the Petitioner, for the Applicant, and/or Mr. Brilhante and the Director? Hearing none, I will entertain a motion, and again, narrowly on the issue of standing, so I'm going to entertain a motion to either grant or deny standing of the Petitioner. MIYASATO: Chair, you know, I do have a question for the Petitioner if I can? HEAUKULANL Certainly. MIYASATO: Okay, Mr. Nelson? NELSON: Yes. 6 EXHIBIT A