2017-08-03 Hearing Transcript - Verizon Wireless USE 17-067

Home

WINDWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT AUGUST 3, 2017 A regularly advertised continued hearing on the application of VERIZON WIRELESS (USE 17-067) was called to order at 9:30 a.m. in the County of Hawaii Aupuni Center Conference Room, 101 Pauahi Street, Hilo, Hawaii with Vice -Chairman Joseph Clarkson presiding. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Joe Clarkson, Donn Dela Cruz, Donald Ikeda, Myles Miyasato, and Thomas Raffipiy. ABSENT & EXCUSED: Gregory Henkel. ALSO PRESENT: Michael Yee (Planning Director), Amy Self (Deputy Corporation Counsel for the Planning Director), Malia Ho Hall (Deputy Corporation Counsel for the Windward Planning Commission), Maija Jackson (Planner), Shancy Watanabe (Planner), Kim Tanaka (Secretary), and Sarah Hata-Finley (Commission Secretary). And 7 members from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: VERIZON WIRELESS (USE 17-000067) Continued hearing for an application for a Use Permit to allow the construction of a new, non - manned telecommunication facility, consisting of a 167 -foot tall steel monopole tower and related facilities within a 900 -square foot portion of a 1 -acre parcel of land situated in the County's Agricultural 1 -acre (A-1 a) zoning district. Initial hearing was continued to allow parties to participate in mediation. The property is located northeast of the `Ohi`a Avenue - Alapua Street intersection, in the Eden Roc Estates Subdivision, Kea`au, Puna, Hawaii, TMK: 1-1-082:031. CLARKSON: The Item 3 that we're going to consider now is basically some procedural things having to do with the selection of a contested case hearing officer for the case of the Applicant, Verizon Wireless, Use Permit 17-000067. Has anyone actually signed up for public testimony? Four people have signed up for public testimony. I would like to say we will hear that testimony, but the real purpose of this agenda item is simply the selection of a contested case hearing officer, and there will be several more opportunities to present testimony on this matter. Not only at the contested case hearing, but when the Commission resumes the consideration of the application at later hearings to receive the report of the contested case hearing officer. So, I'm making that point only to suggest that testimony now, though it will be received, is not necessary because all testifiers would have many more opportunities to submit. If this is your only opportunity, though, please prepare to submit testimony. 10V1111.11 1.1