Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-01-06 TCORAL WINDWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I HEARING TRANSCRIPT JANUARY 6, 2011 CORAL WIRELESS, LLC dba MOBI A regularly advertised hearing on the application of PCS (USE 10-024) was called to order at 10:00 a.m. in the County of Hawai‘i, Aupuni Center Conference Room, 101 Pauahi Street, Hilo, Hawai‘i, with Chairman Zendo Kern presiding. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Zendo Kern, Dean Au, Takashi Domingo, Wallace Ishibashi, Stephen Ono, and Rell Woodward STAFF PRESENT: Julie Mecklenburg (Deputy Corporation Counsel), Daryn Arai (Planning Program Manager), Phyllis Fujimoto (Staff Planner), Maija CottleJeff Darrow (Staff Planner). And 7 people from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: CORAL WIRELESS, LLC dba MOBI PCS (USE 10-024) Application for a Use Permit to allow the construction of an 80-foot tall telecommunication monopole with 6-foot tall panel antennas and related facilities on an approximate 200-square foot portion of a 21.03-acre parcel situated in the State Land Use Agricultural District. The property is located in Waipunalei, approximately one mile north of the town of North Hilo, Hawai‘i, TMK: 3-6-004: Portion of 7. KERN: The next item on the agenda is applicant CORAL WIRELESS, LLC dba MOBI PCS (USE 10-024). All yours, Jeff. DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This application is similar to our last application. Our applicant is Coral Wireless, LLC doing business as Mobi PCS; and, again, they’re requesting a Use Permit to allow for a monopole tower. The area of this application is within the district; more specifically we’re looking at the area identified with your yellow and pink zoning, representing residential and commercial. You might be familiar with the store in which is located just in this particular area here. The area of the subject application is identified with a black outline just above Park; and this is your first gulch as you’re going towards, oh, I’m sorry, second gulch as you’re going towards Waimea. This is a little closer view. Again, we have the black outline. This is Hawai‘i Belt Road running in a, I would say, north-south direction. Again, we have the Park identified with the light green, which represents Agricultural 1-acre zoning. The darker green represents Agricultural 20 acres. Just for some background, this particular property has an existing tower, an 80-foot monopole that was approved in 2003. During that time they went through a special permit and a special management area use permit process, which was approved, SMA 434 and Special Permit 1214. The actual tower site is located just about in this particular area. And this particular tower will be located just next to it. This is an aerial photo. This is Hawai‘i Belt Road. Again, you have the Park located in this general area. On the property you have an existing warehouse, as well as the existing dwelling, and this is the existing tower site. The applicant is requesting a Use Permit to allow the construction of an 80-foot tall monopole with nine 6-foot antennas mounted on the top of the monopole on an approximate 200-square 1 EXHIBIT C foot portion of a 21-acre property. The monopole would be designed to accommodate the placement of another antenna platform for another carrier. This would be co-location. In addition to the monopole, the 200-square foot area would be used for accessory ground facilities to house MOBI’s radio equipment, which will be fenced with a 6-foot high security chain link fence. This is the site plan which was submitted by the applicant. Again, we show Hawai‘i Belt Road. This is the general area of the towers, and it will be located just next to the existing tower. These are trees that are already existing ironwood trees. We show the existing dwelling as well as the warehouse structure. This here you have a driveway that actually accesses the residence, and then it comes over to the site. This is the elevation which shows the existing tower and the new tower that will be located next to it. The Planning Department is recommending approval with our conditions. This particular application has a unique condition. There’s an existing heiau on the property called Mamala Heiau; and in our previous permit as well as in this permit we have a condition that should anybody request legitimate access claims to the heiau by native Hawaiians for the purpose of exercising native Hawaiian cultural or religious practices, the applicant will work with the landowner to make the appropriate access accommodations. And, again, this was also within the existing permit that’s there for Nextel. Additionally, because this permit is locatedwithin the special management area, prior to this application coming before the Planning Commission they were approved for an SMA Minor Permit because the total cost was under $125,000. Lastly, we received a letter of opposition from a surrounding neighbor stating concerns regarding a possible red light that would be placed on top of the tower. I’ve spoken with the applicant’s representative and they’ve assured me that there is not going to be a red light on top of the tower. FAA requires that there be lighting on towers that are 200 feet and higher for safety purposes for aviation. So, in this particular case, because the tower is lower than that it’s not required. Are there any questions? KERN: Questions for staff? Commissioner Ono. ONO: Yes. What is the height of the existing pole now? I’m sorry, I missed that. DARROW: Eighty feet. ONO: So this would be the same height? DARROW: Correct. ONO: Okay, thank you. KERN: Any other questions? Commissioner Domingo. DOMINGO: What’s using the existing tower? DARROW: That’s Nextel. DOMINGO:Nextel. DARROW: That was the applicant. I’m not sure currently who’s co-locating on that particular tower. DOMINGO: So that tower would be still be there to be used for the original purpose? 2 EXHIBIT C DARROW: Correct. DOMINGO: Okay. DARROW: I stand corrected. There was an amendment to the existing permit to allow co- location of eight panel antennas; and I don’t recall who was the applicant. But, obviously, this was for co-location. At that particular time we asked that the applicants come back to the Planning Commission for amendments for co-location. But in this particular, you know, we’re trying to encourage that.So at this point as long as they’re within the parameters of the approved tower height, we’re allowing co-location to be part of the approval. So they just have to go through, they were required previously to go through plan approval. But if it’s just a simple co-location then even plan approval is not necessarily required. DOMINGO: I see. Would these two existing towers and the proposed tower be within the parameters of the heiau, or would it be outside? DARROW: Theyare approximately 150 feet away. DOMINGO: I see. DARROW: We did receive a no-effect letter from Department of Land and Natural Resources, State Historic Preservation Division, stating that they feel that these towers will not have an effect on these historic properties. DOMINGO: Might be the engineers from Castle (sic) can answer this question. How many panels would be required ordinarily for a user, be used on a pole for their purposes? How many panels are required? DARROW: We have another applicant -. DOMINGO: Oh, sure. DARROW: Okay, thank you. DOMINGO: I’m sorry. DARROW: Thank you. FOX: Good morning. KERN: Good morning. Please raise your right hand. I’ll swear you in before you begin. Do you affirm/swear to tell the truth today before the Windward Planning Commission? YOUNG: Yes, I do. KERN: All right. And name and address and -? YOUNG: My name is Carl Young. I live at 1130 Hind Iyuka Drive in Honolulu, Hawai‘i 96821. To answer the question about the number of antennas, it depends on the application, the applicant, and what they’re trying to achieve, based on their network design. So it would be omni antennas, it could be three, which was the original application, I believe, for Nexel. And they were replaced I believe with three panel antennas. Some people like to use six or sometimes nine, and upward up to 12. And sometimes due to microwave dishes -. It depends on what they’re trying to achieve there. So it’s an engineering decision. 3 EXHIBIT C DOMINGO: Okay, thank you. ONO: I’m kind of -. KERN: One second, please, Commissioner Ono. Did you want to give a presentation first, and then have us ask questions, or you’re just ready for questions? YOUNG: I could just answer questions. That’s fine. KERN: Commissioner Ono? ONO:Yes. I’m sorry, I can’t imagine nine 6-foot panels. It’s, to me, a panel covers, it’s not like the old fashion antennas with just spikes sticking out. It’s a panel-sized thing covering an entire 6 by whatever? YOUNG: The approximate dimensions can vary. But if you were to think of something like a speaker, it would be probably about a foot in diameter at most, not diameter, but in width; and maybe six feet long, and maybe three or four inches thick. ONO: So, okay, according to the application there are going to be nine of these? YOUNG: Right. ONO: Thank you. KERN: Commissioner Domingo. DOMINGO: Those ironwood trees, would you folks be trimming that or just leave it as is? YOUNG: There’s no plan to trim the trees. It’s used for shielding. But there have been occasions when HECO has trimmed it because their existing powerlines run across the gulch there. DOMINGO: I travelled there this morning. I was looking for the antenna, I could hardly see it. As I drove right at the base of the site I couldn’t see it. The only time I could see it was when I was across the other side of the gulch looking towards this site; and even that wasn’t as clear as possible. It is good. YOUNG: Could I add something to that? KERN:Sure. YOUNG: Prior to the, the prior application, I was involved in that one as well for Nextel Partners. And they required us, at that time, to erect assimilation. So we put up an actual pole, a PVC pipe, a very large one, on top of a cherry picker, with antennas on it. And we left it there for a week so that we could get comments from the community. And that was prior to the meeting with the North Hilo Community Association, and there was no comment. So they had seen it for, I think, a couple of weeks. KERN: Okay, very good. Did you receive the Planning Department’s background report and their recommendation? YOUNG: Yes. 4 EXHIBIT C KERN: And are you okay with those? YOUNG: Yes. KERN: Okay. Any other questions? I have a question. Can you explain again why you couldn’t locate on that existing pole? YOUNG: The existing pole was designed for two carriers; and so currently the second carrier that is referred to is Verizon. So they’ve occupied it, and it basically can’t take any more. So if we were to go add on to that pole they’re at about 40 feet, we’d have to get 20, which doesn’t accomplish anything. KERN: Understood. Thank you very much. All right. You have anything else to add? YOUNG: No. KERN: All right, thank you very much. YOUNG: Thank you. KERN: And have a seat.And there are no people from the public signed up to testify, so at this timeI’d entertain a motion. DOMINGO: Mr. Chairman? KERN: Commissioner Domingo. DOMINGO: Regarding the applicant Coral Wireless LLC doing business as MOBI PCS, its Use Permit No. 10-024, I move for its approval. KERN: Is there a second? ONO: Second. KERN: Motion has been made and seconded. Discussion? Commissioner Woodward. WOODWARD: Yeah, I’d like to just mention one thing. The last two applications that we’ve dealt with have been to replace an existing tower with the tower of the same or less height in the same spot, and there was no objection. It was really a business decision more than it was a land use commission, or land use decision. It seems ridiculous that this is even being brought to us. You know, there ought to be a provision, I would think -. And I’ll leave this at the Planning Director’s discretion whether she has any say in the matter. But if we’re given a situation in the future, which likely will happen, that somebody wants to just replace equipment of the same size or smaller size on the same site, carte blanche. I don’t see why we’re wasting our time on it, to be honest with you. DARROW: If I could address that. KERN: Yes, Mr. Darrow. DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Woodward, for that comment. The first application was for a tower that was actually not permitted originally; and that’s why we had to require them to come in to get permitted. If that tower was permitted and they were going to build a tower the same height 5 EXHIBIT C or less, they would be able to do that without having to come back. This particular application is actually not replacing a tower. It’s adding an additional 80-foot tower. So we have two towers. WOODWARD: Okay, good. Well, I stand corrected. And I feel better about it that we’re not going to be revisting a lot of stuff. That’s silly. Thank you. KERN: Any other discussion? Seeing none, Mr. Darrow. DARROW: With that I’ll take the roll call. Commissioner Domingo? DOMINGO: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Woodward? WOODWARD: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Au? AU: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Ishibashi? ISHIBASHI: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Ono? ONO: Aye. DARROW: And Mr. Chairman? KERN: Aye. DARROW: The motion passes six to zero. KERN: Thank you very much. You’ll be notified in writing of the decision. The discussion ended at 10:15 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Nomura, Secretary Windward Planning Commission 6 EXHIBIT C