Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-11-05 Hearing Transcript - Cellco Partnership dba Verizon USE 15-056 WINDWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I HEARING TRANSCRIPT NOVEMBER 5, 2015 CELLCO PARTNERSHIP DBA A regularly advertised hearing on the application of VERIZON WIRELESS (USE 15-056) was called to order at 10:48 a.m. in the County of Hawai‘i Aupuni Center Conference Room, 101 Pauahi Street, Hilo, Hawai‘i with Chairman Myles Miyasato presiding. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Myles Miyasato, Donn Dela Cruz, Charles Heaukulani, Gregory Henkel, Donald Ikeda, and Raylene Moses. ALSO PRESENT: Duane Kanuha (Planning Director), Danny Patel (Deputy Corporation Counsel for the Windward Planning Commission), Amy Self (Deputy Corporation Counsel for the Planning Director); Daryn Arai (Planning Program Manager), Jeff Darrow (Staff Planner), Lucas Mead (Staff Planner), Christian Kay (Staff Planner), and Sarah Hata-Finley (Commission Secretary). And approximately 12 people from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: CELLCO PARTNERSHIP DBA VERIZON WIRELESS (USE 15-056) Application for a Use Permit to allow the construction of a new telecommunication facility, including a 150-foot tall steel monopole with 8-foot tall panel antennas and related facilities within a 1,600 square-foot portion of a 2-acre parcel situated in the County’s Agricultural 1-acre nd (A-1a) zoning district. The property is located on the northeast side of 32 Avenue nd approximately 2,160 feet southeast of the Paradise Drive–32 Avenue intersection, Hawaiian Paradise Park Subdivision, Kea‘au, Puna, Hawai‘i, TMK: 1-5-017:Por. of 118. MIYASATO: Okay, next item, Agenda Item No. 6, Applicant Cellco Partnership dba Verizon Wireless. DARROW: Sorry for the delay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I can direct your attention to our next presentation. Again, our applicant is Cellco Partnership doing business as Verizon Wireless. They’re requesting a Use Permit. The area of this application is within the Puna District of Hawaiʽi. More specifically, we’re looking in the area of Paradise, Hawaiian Paradise Park Subdivision, as well as Orchidland Estates Subdivision. For reference, running through the middle of the map in a north-south direction is the Keaʽau- Pāhoa Road or Highway 130. The subject property is identified with a black outline between Paradise Drive and Makuʽu Drive. 1 EXHIBIT F This is a closer view of the subject property and surrounding area. Again, for reference, the colors on the map represent the County zoning. The light green represents Agricultural – 1 acre zoning. The light blue represents Agricultural – 3 acres. The subject property is Agricultural – 1 acre. This is an aerial photo. Just for reference, the State Land Use for this area is Agriculture, and the nd General Plan for this area is Rural. This is an aerial photo. This is 32 Avenue. To the north would be Paradise Drive, and to the south would be Makuʽu Drive, so this is between them. nd They are located on the northeast side of 32 Avenue. This is the location of a church that has been permitted through a previous Special Permit. It is larger than the normal one-acre lots. This has been consolidated to be two acres in size. The applicant is requesting a Use Permit to allow the construction of a new telecommunication facility including a 150-foot tall steel monopole with 8-foot tall panel antennas and related facilities within a 1,600-square foot portion of a 2-acre parcel situated in the County’s Agricultural – 1 acre zoning district. The objective of this project is to improve coverage in the neighborhoods of the Hawaiian Paradise Park Subdivision, covering the southern, southwestern part of the neighborhood. Coverage will be improved to provide better call quality within the homes as customers depend more on cellular service, excuse me, over land line telephone services in Hawaiʽi. Lastly, the proposed project will increase data speeds for Internet connection, video services, and phone applications. This is a site plan that was submitted with the application. Again, for reference, on the bottom nd portion of the map is 32 Avenue. As mentioned, this is the location of an existing church, and there is parking on the property as well as two structures. The church facility as well as a dwelling for the pastor. The project site is identified in the northern portion of the property. These are elevations of the proposed steel monopoles. And, these are site photos. This is on ndnd 32 Avenue looking towards Makuʽu, and this is the subject property on the left. This is on 32 looking towards Paradise Drive, with the subject property on the right. And, this is looking at nd the subject property from 32 Avenue. This is the current church facility as well as the single- family dwelling that’s constructed on the property. This is the area of the proposed project site for the telecommunication tower and equipment facility. The Planning Director is recommending that the Planning Commission approve this with the attached conditions within the Recommendation. That concludes—oh, I’m sorry—just this morning, we did receive a petition for standing in a contested case hearing from Shun Kwan and Yuk Wah Wong. Again, this was received this morning without a filing fee. Attempts were made to contact the petitioner, and unfortunately there was a communication disconnection there as far as—I don’t think they understood English, and so we tried to explain to—we tried to understand if they were wanting to submit a petition or 2 EXHIBIT F if they were just submitting testimony, but they, unfortunately, it remained unclear. We tried to express to be present for the hearing. I’m not sure if the petitioner is present at this time. With that, that concludes our presentation. Thank you. MIYASATO: Commissioners, any questions for staff? Thank you. Okay, do we have the petitioners, Shun Kwan or Yuk Wah Wong present? ARAI: Mr. Chairman, sorry I stepped out just for a moment and missed the discussion earlier, but the petitioner for intervention, we did receive the petition just early this morning, so we quickly made a phone call to the petitioner, and she clarified that she does not care about the application. I did ask her specifically if she had any specific objections to the application, and she said no, but in the end she did say she did not care, so I have the understanding that she misunderstood what it meant to file that particular form for the petition. And, she did indicate that she is working and will not be able to attend today’s hearing. MIYASATO: So, it’s withdrawn by the? ARAI: It is not withdrawn. I believe you would still need to dispatch with the petition as it was filed even though it was filed late and without a fee. MIYASATO: Okay, thank you. PATEL: And, just to note for the record, too, I’m looking at the petition for standing and as far as all the questions, she’s checked off no, so I—you know, I can understand how there might have been some kind of misunderstanding on the petitioner’s part. But, I just wanted to call the Commissioner’s attention to that, but, as Daryn mentioned, we will still need action taken on this petition. MIYASATO: Okay—okay, so the first order of business regarding this agenda item is to determine whether to accept a petition for standing from, for standing from Shun Kwan and Yuk th Wah Wong received by the Planning Department November 5, 2015. Commissioners, does the, does County have any comment on this? SELF: Yes, we would just like to state on the record that we object to this particular petition based on the same, the same reason for the other petition which is based on Planning Commission Rule 4-6(a). It was filed this morning, which misses the seven-day deadline, and there is no filing fee, and as pointed out by your counsel, the first question is, “Is your interest in this matter clearly distinguishable from that of the general public?” And, this petitioner checked off no. So, on, based on all of that, we would just like to state our objection to the petition. Thank you. MIYASATO: Okay. Mr. Shaffer, I’ll just remind you that you’re still under oath, yeah? Do you have any objection to this petition? 3 EXHIBIT F SHAFFER: I would object under similar grounds that it looks like the applicant did not actually attempt to object by checking no in all the boxes. MIYASATO: Okay, thank you. Commissioners, any questions for staff? If not, I’ll accept the motion on this petition for standing, to grant or deny. MOSES: I make a motion to deny petition for standing in this contested case. HENKEL: Second. MIYASATO: I have a motion by Commissioner Moses, a second by Commissioner Henkel. Any discussion on the motion? If not, you can call the roll. DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With that, we’ll call the roll. Commissioner Moses? MOSES: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Henkel? HENKEL: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Dela Cruz? DELA CRUZ: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Heaukulani? HEAUKULANI: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Ikeda? IKEDA: Aye. DARROW: And Mr. Chairman. MIYASATO: Aye. DARROW: The motion passes six to zero. MIYASATO: Okay, back to the application. Commissioners, any questions for staff on the presentation? If not, okay, you’re still under oath, yeah? Just to remind—do you have anything to add to the presentation or any comment? SHAFFER: No, I’d be happy to answer any questions you guys might have, though. 4 EXHIBIT F MIYASATO: Commissioners, any questions? PATEL: Just to clarify, is the applicant going to be requesting to continue this application as well? SHAFFER: No. MIYASATO: If there are no questions, are you in agreement with all the conditions that were set forth? SHAFFER: Yes. MIYASATO: Okay, thank you. SHAFFER: Thank you. MIYASATO: For public testimony, Steve Dalrymple? Please come forward. Okay, just to remind you, you’re still under oath, yeah? DALRYMPLE: Yes. MIYASATO: Please state your name and residence. DALRYMPLE: Yeah, Steve Dalrymple. My address is 15-1326 Kahakai Boulevard, and the main thing that I want to say about this is that I’m going to repeat what I said before that your, whatever the requirements for notification are definitely inadequate. People who are 500 feet away are, like they’re almost under the cell phone tower, still, you know, and they don’t even know that this thing is coming up. It’s really very inadequate, and the idea that you can inform people on this street and not the people on this street, and the cell phone tower is here, these guys on this street don’t even know there’s one less than a hundred feet from ‘em coming up. It’s totally inadequate. If there’s any way I could stop this kind of thing, I would let ‘em know. And, like the gentlemen who mentioned before, I know a lot of people think, oh we gotta have cellphones, but it’s still, it’s dangerous as far as a lot of people are concerned and no, no proven evidence has been put out to the public, you know, people don’t even know what’s happening. But, I have seen this exhibit where if you put four cellphones on a table with some popcorn in the middle, the cellphones themselves, if they’re transmitting, can pop popcorn. It’s ridiculous. It’s like we’re sitting under a microwave oven if we live right near these things, but nobody seems to be concerned about it. And then, the way this set up is going now, people are getting these things right in their backyard and over their head and they don’t even know it’s happening. So, I would highly recommend that you change this. You’re going to get a big reaction out of this later on. 5 EXHIBIT F MIYASATO: Commissioners, any questions? Thank you. Is there anyone else wishing to testify on this application? If not, Commissioners, can I have a motion to close public testimony? IKEDA: I move to close public testimony. DELA CRUZ: Second. MIYASATO: All in favor? COMMISSIONERS: Aye. MIYASATO: Any opposed? I’ll call a close to the public testimony on this application. Commissioners, any discussion on this application? If not, I’ll accept a motion. IKEDA: Mr. Chairman, I move that the application for the Use Permit Docket No. USE 15-056 be approved based on the Planning Director’s findings, recommendations, and proposed conditions which shall be adopted. MOSES: Second. MIYASATO: I have a motion by Commissioner Ikeda and a second by Commissioner Moses. Any discussion on the motion? You can call the roll. DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Commissioner Ikeda? IKEDA: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Moses? MOSES: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Dela Cruz? DELA CRUZ: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Heaukulani? HEAUKULANI: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Henkel? HENKEL: Aye. DARROW: And Mr. Chairman. 6 EXHIBIT F MIYASATO: Aye. DARROW: The motion passes six to zero. MIYASATO: You’ll be notified in writing. The discussion ended at 11:05 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Sarah Y. Hata-Finley, Secretary Windward Planning Commission 7 EXHIBIT F