My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
2016-07-07 Hearing Transcript - Cellco Partnership dba Verizon USE 16-063
PublicDocuments
>
Planning Department
>
Leeward/Windward Planning Commission
>
Minutes & Exhibits Transcripts
>
2003-2022 Exhibits Transcripts
>
2016
>
2016-07-07 Hearing Transcript - Cellco Partnership dba Verizon USE 16-063
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/7/2016 8:32:58 AM
Creation date
10/7/2016 8:32:55 AM
Metadata
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
7
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
MARTIN: Yes, I wanted to speak to the issue about the highways, the realignment. We've <br />already been in contact with the Department of Transportation and will coordinate our <br />construction so it doesn't interfere with them. The way we feel right now is that the road will be <br />completed before we start our construction. <br />HENKEL: Okay. Any questions, Commissioners? Mr. Clarkson. <br />CLARKSON: Yes, I guess I've got it on. I noticed that you proposed no lighting of this tower. <br />MARTIN: That's right. <br />CLARKSON: And, the Fish & Wildlife comments were predicated on there being no lighting. <br />But, the FAA leaves it up to you whether or not to put lighting on the tower, and I'm just <br />wondering whether we shouldn't make that a condition. <br />MARTIN: I don't believe you should make it a condition. We actually decreased the height of <br />the tower. The original height was proposed at 200 which would require lighting. And, because <br />Fish & Wildlife were aware of their issues, we've asked, we asked them to reduce the height by <br />five feet to get away from that lighting requirement. <br />CLARKSON: Yes, I understand that, but my, my <br />MARTIN: If for some reason, though, Fish & Wildlife, or if some reason FAA, you never <br />know what's gonna be built in the future, and FAA may require it, and then we'd have to go <br />back to Fish & Wildlife and we'd have to work that out. I think it would be hard to regulate <br />something that should be regulated by a different agency. <br />CLARKSON: Okay, well, I just want to make clear that whether it's lit or not is entirely up to <br />the owner of the tower. <br />MARTIN: No, it's not, because Fish & Wildlife has said no, no lighting, and so we are required <br />and bound to comply with the needed conditions, so we wouldn't be able to light it anyway. <br />CLARKSON: Okay. So, is there a condition for no lighting? <br />KAY: There is not a specific condition that speaks to lighting other than—let me just make sure <br />I'm giving you correct information—the, Condition No. 7 speaks to lighting should it be required <br />and it says the Applicant shall install shield outdoor lights to direct light downwards. The other <br />condition that speaks to kind of generally the requirement to comply with all applicable rules and <br />regulations is Number 10, and that's including FAA and FCC rules. So, that's kind of a catch-all <br />condition that we have that says down the line, the Applicant will need to comply with all <br />applicable rules and laws. <br />CLARKSON: I don't want to continue this too long, but I just would like to point out that <br />compliance would allow you to put marker lights on the tower, and I don't know how much of a <br />5 <br />EXHIBIT A <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.