Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-11-20 TDIRECTORZONINGCODE LEEWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I HEARING TRANSCRIPT NOVEMBER 20, 2009 PLANNING DIRECTOR INITIATED AMENDMENT A regularly advertised hearing on the TO CHAPTER 25 (ZONING CODE) was called to order at 2:27 p.m. in the Waikoloa Beach Marriott Hotel, Ali‘i III Room, 69-275 Waikoloa Drive, Waikoloa, Hawai‘i, with Chairman Rodney Watanabe presiding. PRESENT: Rodney Watanabe Brandi Beaudet Lani Bowman Fdq`kchmdFheehm Frederic Housel Wayne Iokepa Aq`mcnmFnmy`kdy , Deputy Corporation Counsel L`qf`qdsL`rtm`f`+CdotsxOk`mmhmfChqdbsnq Norman Hayashi, Planning Program Manager Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner  Maija Cottle, Staff Planner And five people from the public in attendance INITIATOR: PLANNING DIRECTOR Amendment to Chapter 25, Hawaii County Code 1983 (2005 Edition, as amended) by requiring a Use Permit for telecommunication antennas and towers situated within the Residential and Agricultural (RA), Family Agricultural (FA), Agricultural (A) and Intensive Agricultural (IA) zoned districts. WATANABE: We are on the Agenda Item No. 2. This is, the initiator is the Planning Director, and this is an amendment, or a proposed amendment to Chapter 25. Maija? COTTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is an amendment initiated by the Planning Director, and it came about because State Law was recently changed to allow telecommunication towers and antennas as a permitted use in the State Land Use Agricultural district. So to allow an opportunity for the Planning Department to review telecommunication towers and for the public to provide input on the locations of these towers, the Planning Director is recommending that a Use Permit now be required on State Land Use Agricultural land. So the Director obviously is recommending approval of this amendment. Are there any questions? WATANABE: Fellow Commissioners, do we have any questions of staff? EXHIBIT B 1 COTTLE: I’m sorry. Can I add one thing? WATANABE: Yes, Maija. COTTLE: You should also have a revised bill on yellow paper. And those were changes made by the Director at the Windward meeting. Basically the changes are, there are two changes: The first section, Section 2, was added and that is just another section of the Zoning Code that we realized we also have to amend that to be consistent with the other sections of the Code; and then one line was added in Section 3 (a), the last sentence where it says, “Where there is an existing telecommunication tower, co-location of additional antenna or equipment will be permitted provided the Director has issued plan approval for such use.” So this addition is just allowing co-location on an existing tower so that the applicant won’t have to go back through and get a Use Permit for that purpose. WATANABE: Okay, very good. One second, Mr. Housel. Just I’ve been informed, for the record we should note that Ms. Giffin is -. GIFFIN:No longer recused. WATANABE: Yeah, no longer recused. Well, I was going to use something more positive, but that will work. Okay, Mr. Housel. HOUSEL: I’ll wait for Maija; I had a question for Maija. Maija, the change in Section 3 (a), “co-location of additional antennas and equipment,” does that mean on the same tower or a separate tower? COTTLE: On the same tower. HOUSEL: Okay. COTTLE: On an existing tower. HOUSEL: Okay so, I want to be clear, if they are building another tower, would they need a Use Permit? COTTLE: They would. HOUSEL: They would. COTTLE: Yes. HOUSEL: Okay, thank you. WATANABE: Any further questions of staff? If not, I have one individual that’s signed up to testify: Dante Mettler. Danette. Boy, I’m messing up everyone’s name. I’m sorry. May I EXHIBIT B 2 swear you in, Ms. Mettler? Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Planning Commission? METTLER: I do. WATANABE: Thank you. State your name and address, and begin -. METTLER: My name is Danette Mettler and I live at 76-6357 Kololia Street, Kailua- Kona, Hawai‘i. WATANABE: Okay, you can begin your testimony. METTLER: I attended the Windward Planning Commission where they had added that language. But I would like to ask this Commission if we could also allow the placement of antennas on existing structures so long as they were concealed; this would I think encourage telecommunication companies to use stealth technology so that it’s not visible. For instance, T- Mobil even during the using the State Land Use that was in place at the time allowed for antennas to be on a rooftop, and T-Mobil had enclosed it in what looked like a chimney; so when you drive by that house, you would never know that there was an antenna there. And I’d like to, I live in this community, too, and I’d like to encourage carriers to use the stealth technology and this might be a way to create an incentive for them. WATANABE: Okay, so it’s not so much for co-location as it is for stealth? METTLER: Stealthing, yes, well, we’ve already, the language has already been revised in the Windward Planning Commission and I have no issues with that. WATANABE: Okay. Is that the gist of your testimony? METTLER: That’s it. WATANABE: Okay. Fellow Commissioners, do we have any questions of Ms. Mettler? Well, thank you for your testimony. You may be seated. Does anyone care to make a motion? And the motion will be to forward a favorable or -. BOWMAN: Can I -? WATANABE: Yes. BOWMAN: Just ask a stupid question? I’m sorry, I should have done it when you were up here. If all telecommunication towers are enclosed, or if they put additional -. I don’t understand what it means, I’m sorry. METTLER: That’s all right. Explain it again? EXHIBIT B 3 BOWMAN: I can understand if it’s on top of a house, have a faked chimney, but what if it’s not on top of a house? What do they do? METTLER: Okay, for instance, a lot of times commercial buildings or hotels or something, we can do a false parapet; so if it would be on top of an elevator shaft typically where the antennas are behind, the, our friendly material they use something that’s like Fiberglas so that the antennas can actually, it doesn’t impede their signal but it hides it behind a stealth panel and it’s painted to match the building so it looks like an architectural detail. BOWMAN: Okay. And this would be on all towers. METTLER: Not towers, per se, because we, you’ve already amended and said that if we are going on an existing tower, that we don’t need to do a Use Permit, because presumably it’s already been reviewed by the Planning Commission and been approved for future co- location. And since a Special Permit is not allowed anymore, a carrier would have to come in and get a Use Permit for things that they had already gotten approval for, and I don’t think that the Planning Department, you know, I think the reason why they were so willing to make that change is so that they wouldn’t have to go back and re-permit things that had already been permitted. BOWMAN: Right. So you are recommending that we add something at the end of that? METTLER: That you allow antennas in the area stated here, RS, RD, RM, RCX, RA, FA, A and IA districts, so long as they are concealed, and then we still would have to come and have, get plan approval for each use. And plan approval addresses esthetics and colors and landscaping and things like that. BOWMAN: So long as they are concealed. METTLER: Concealed, yes, from public view. BOWMAN: Okay, I mean, they are going to see them -. METTLER: No, no, they wouldn’t. BOWMAN: I mean they’ll see something. But what you are saying is they’ll see something more esthetically pleasing -. METTLER: They won’t be seeing the antenna itself; they would be seeing the stealth enclosure. BOWMAN: So we would add that they be concealed. METTLER: Yes. EXHIBIT B 4 BOWMAN: Okay, thank you. WATANABE: Any further questions? Mr. Housel. HOUSEL: Are you – I just want to make sure, I understand what you are asking for – are you suggesting that they be concealed if possible, or asking that they be required to be concealed? METTLER: If you allowed for antennas to be a permitted use so long as they had plan approval, the carrier would have an incentive to go and conceal their antennas; if they didn’t, they would have to go through a Use Permit. So it’s not to say that they are required to do that, because in some instances it wouldn’t make sense because there’s maybe nobody for five miles around – so what would be the use of stealthing? But in some instances where they can in their, in the area, it just, I’m just saying that if it would provide an incentive for the carriers to pay the extra cost – stealthing is expensive – to pay the extra cost and say we can get our product to market faster, if we can make this design and conceal it. HOUSEL: Okay, thank you for your explanation. WATANABE: Okay. Are we -? Yes, Ms. Bowman. BOWMAN: So you are saying where possible, I mean, where it would be an eyesore or where it would be visible by the general public? METTLER: Yes. BOWMAN: Okay. Maybe I can ask if this was brought up at the Windward conference. COTTLE: Yeah, let me see if I understand what you are asking for. So at the Windward meeting something similar to this came up where you suggested if there’s for example like an existing barn on Ag land, you would like the ability to add an antenna since the barn is considered a structure -. METTLER: Right. COTTLE: Without requiring a Use Permit. METTLER: Right. And I didn’t, I did not talk to the Windward Committee (sic) about the stealthing idea; that was something I came up with later. I had asked the Windward Committee (sic) that in the State Ag Land Use the new law that came out there’s some, there was some debate as to what it really meant; in my opinion I thought it meant that you could co-locate, you could put antennas on existing towers. What it says is existing structures and a structure was defined as a tower or any other legal structure. So what I was asking for from the Windward Committee (sic) is to use what we all thought that was the meaning of the State law and inserting that into it. The Windward Commission had to say no; they didn’t agree with that because there EXHIBIT B 5 were several different, there was Residential as well as Ag included in this new legislation. So they didn’t want to see an antenna be on their neighbor’s home. And I agree with that. But I do think that as long as it was concealed – I think the main challenge that telecommunication has is esthetics – and if we could say that it’s permitted as long as it’s concealed, it was allowed in the State Ag, if it had four walls around it, it was an allowed use, because it was considered a communication building, communication equipment building. WATANABE: So let, let me, may I interrupt? So what you are saying, your intent is to try and see if there’s a more expedient way of deploying a communications antenna in a residential area without going through the Use Permit necessarily. METTLER: Not necessarily just residential, I mean, if you want, we could even break this out into maybe just Ag or whatever -. WATANABE: But that’s the general intent. METTLER: But, yes, right, that’s what I was requesting in all of these – Residential and Family Ag and Ag. COTTLE: Mr. Chairman? WATANABE: Yes. COTTLE: Just for the record, when this issue, not the stealth issue came up, but the issue of allowing antennas on existing structures like, for example, barn on Ag land came up, the Director did not support that at the Windward meeting. WATANABE: Okay, so, on an existing structure she wasn’t real supportive of that – more than likely it’ll be too close, etc. Okay. COTTLE: That’s correct. The Director didn’t want to forfeit the ability to -. WATANABE: Use her own discretion? COTTLE: Provide neighbors to provide input and also review it for the location of the tower or other structure. WATANABE: Okay, very good. Do we have any further questions for Ms. Mettler? BOWMAN: Okay, I just want to clarify. I misunderstood; I thought you were saying if they were going to put, that there was already an existing telecommunication tower and you were going to co-locate something, that then it would have to be enclosed, so -. I apologize. I’m confused. It’s new. WATANABE: Okay. Mr. Housel, any last remarks? EXHIBIT B 6 HOUSEL:No, I think I’ve understood it very well. Thank you. WATANABE: Okay, very well. Thank you for your testimony. (Addressing to a member of the public) I see you are raising your hand, sir, but if you want to testify, you need to sign up. ESTES: Yeah, I didn’t know this was coming up. I’m just a wireless communication expert and I just would like to make a comment -. WATANABE: Then sign up. You can go and sign up. MASUNAGA: Yeah, right now. ESTES: Okay. GIFFIN: Mr. Chairman? WATANABE: Yes. GIFFIN:While that gentleman is signing up, I have a question of Corp. Counsel and/or Maija. If we are speaking of an ordinance that is already gone through this process in the other Planning Commission, don’t we have to have the same -? WATANABE: Yes, we are just making a recommendation, and the ordinance would then go before the County Council. So you know, we -. GIFFIN:But if it’s different from the other Commission, what happens? GONZALEZ: Okay, so actually, when the Charter amendment went through to create the Windward and Leeward, it designated that each Commission individually would have to provide input on matters that would be changed or affected countywide.So the situation like this could arise where Leeward may send up a different recommendation than Windward; it’s possible the way that the law is drafted. Practically speaking, it creates issues, which is what you are trying to address. But my answer to you is, the way that the law is, it’s possible that there could be a conflict between Leeward and Windward because each side is taking into account the specific interest of the people in their areas, which might be different by geographical location and then it might not. HOUSEL: So it’s not required that we have agreement between the two Commissions? GONZALEZ: It’s not a legal requirement, but like I said, practically speaking, to be consistent we would like some type of consensus. HOUSEL: Right. EXHIBIT B 7 WATANABE:Okay. Zion Estes? Mr. Estes? ESTES: Excuse me for being last minute. I wasn’t aware that you guys were dealing with -. WATANABE: Yeah, I need to swear you in, sir. ESTES: Okay. WATANABE: Raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Planning Commission? ESTES: Yes, I do. WATANABE: I need your name and address. ESTES: Zion Estes. My address is 65-1316 Lihipali Road, Kamuela, Hawai‘i. WATANABE: Fine. You may begin your testimony. ESTES: Yeah, I was just listening to what the testimony was. As far as being low- profiler, you know, you guys might want to research as far as different bandwidths, cause the problem would be is, if you cover the transmitters, the communication companies are going to have to run higher voltage through the transmission and that’s a lot worse for health – No. 1. No. 2 is that there is a federal mandate for the FCC called the National Broadband Plan coming out in February of next year, and there is about ten billion in funding for rural and urban areas. So I don’t think we want to really necessarily limit our local capacity in any region, you know; I think that maybe subdivisions and maybe people that live on Ag land, you know, should vote whether or not they want to have wireless communication capability in their area. But in general for rural and urban development areas that’s the federal standard is that it’s being implemented as of next year in February. And so if we get ourselves in position now until February – is what I’m doing – we could capitalize and bring some, a lot of money into the local economy. And that’s about all I had to say. WATANABE: Thank you. Do we have any questions of the testifier? Okay, thank you for your testimony. ESTES: Thank you. WATANABE: Okay, that’s the end of the public testimony. So, is anyone interested in making a motion? Mr. Housel. HOUSEL: Mr. Chair, I’d like to make a motion. On the amendment to Chapter 25, Hawai‘i County Code 1983 (2005 Edition), that we make a favorable recommendation to the County Council. EXHIBIT B 8 WATANABE: Okay. Do I have a second on that? IOKEPA: I second. WATANABE: Thank you. Any further discussion on this? Maija? COTTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just to clarify, this is the yellow revisions? Okay. Commissioner Housel? HOUSEL: Aye. COTTLE: Commissioner Iokepa? IOKEPA: Aye. COTTLE: Commissioner Beaudet? BEAUDET: Aye. COTTLE: Commissioner Bowman? BOWMAN: Aye. COTTLE: Commissioner Giffin? GIFFIN: Aye. COTTLE: And Mr. Chairman? WATANABE: Aye. COTTLE: Okay, that is six-zero to forward a favorable recommendation. WATANABE: Okay, thank you. The discussion ended at 2:48 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Noriko Sauer, Secretary Leeward Planning Commission EXHIBIT B 9