Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-06-01 Hearing Transcript - Cellco Partnership dba Verizon Wireless USE 15-000059WINDWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT JUNE 1, 2017 A regularly advertised hearing on the application of CELLCO PARTNERSHIP DBA VERIZON WIRELESS (USE 15-059) was called to order at 9:05 a.m. in the County of Hawaii Aupuni Center Conference Room, 101 Pauahi Street, Hilo, Hawaii with Chairman Gregory Henkel presiding. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Joseph Clarkson, Gregory Henkel, Donald Ikeda, and Myles Miyasato. ABSENT & EXCUSED: Donn Dela Cruz, Thomas Raffipiy. ALSO PRESENT: Michael Yee (Planning Director), Daryn Arai (Deputy Planning Director, 9:16 a.m. to 10:33 a.m.), Malia Ho Hall (Deputy Corporation Counsel for the Windward Planning Commission), Jeff Darrow (Planning Program Manager), Ron Whitmore (Project Manager for the Ka`u CDP, 9:16 a.m. to 10:33 a.m.), Maija Jackson (Planner), Christian Kay (Planner), Shancy Watanabe (Planner), and Sarah Hata-Finley (Commission Secretary). And 4 members from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: CELLCO PARTNERSHIP DBA VERIZON WIRELESS (USE 15-000059) Application for a Use Permit to allow the construction of a new telecommunication facility, including a 155 -foot tall steel monopine with 8 -foot tall panel antennas and related facilities within a 900 -square foot portion of a 5.76 -acre parcel situated in the County's Agricultural 3 - acre (A -3a) zoning district. The properties are located at 11-3019 Volcano Highway, approximately 400 feet east of the Kahuale`a Road -Volcano Highway intersection, Fern Forest Estates Subdivision, Kea`au, Puna, Hawaii, TMK: 1-1-020: Portions of 085 and 086. HENKEL: And, we will proceed to Agenda Item No. 2 which is the Cellco Partnership dba Verizon Wireless, USE 15-000059. So, it looks like Shancy will be making the presentation. WATANABE: Thank you. Good morning, everyone. MIYASATO: Good morning. WATANABE: The landowner is the International Church of the Foursquare. This application is for a Use Permit. This is the location map. The subject properties are outlined in black located just off of the Old Volcano Road in the Puna District between Mile Markers 22 and 23 on the Volcano Road or Highway 11. EXHIBIT A For orientation, the Volcano Road runs in the west to northeast direction. Kahuale`a Road runs south from Volcano Road. So, this is Kahuale`a. Old Volcano Road is here. And, this is the Volcano Highway. This is the County Zoning Map. The subject properties are zoned Ag -3a or Agricultural District, as well as the adjacent property surrounding in the light blue. This zoning allows for a Single - Family dwelling as well as agricultural uses and structures. To the north, we have the Forest Reserve. To the east, the properties are zoned Open and are consistent with the underlying State Land Use Conservation District. Here's the State Land Use Boundary Map. The subject properties are in the State Land Use Agricultural District shown in the light green. To the north and east, these properties are in the State Land Use Conservation District, which is consistent for the Forest Reserve and the Open zoning. This map identifies the General Plan also known as the Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide or LUPAG Map. The subject properties are located in the Extensive Agriculture shown in the white. Here are two aerial photos of the subject properties. Here we have the Volcano Road, Highway 11, Old Volcano Road and Kahuale`a Road in the south direction here. On the right side, we have a closer view of the subject property. Here we have the church structures. This is the paved driveway that comes into the paved parking area. We have the storage—the storage containers are here, and this is the proposed location of the monopine. The Applicant is requesting a Use Permit to allow the construction of a new telecommunication facility consisting of a 155 -foot tall steel monopine with 8 -foot tall panel antennas and related facilities within a 900 -square foot portion of a 5.76 -acre parcel situated within the County's Agricultural – 3 acre zoning district with access over an adjacent half -acre parcel. The 900 - square foot leased area will be fenced and used for accessory ground facilities, which will include electronic radio and battery equipment cabinets and an emergency generator on a concrete slab foundation. The proposed project serves to expand coverage in the neighborhoods between Volcano Village and Glenwood Estates. The Applicant has provided the site plan of the subject properties. So, again, here we have the church structures, the existing church structures, the paved parking area, the existing storage containers, and here's the proposed leased area. The Applicant has also provided this elevation plan which depicts the height of the monopine. The height of the monopine will be 155 feet. This is a photo of the proposed leased area towards the rear south portion of the subject properties. Here we have the existing storage containers, and the proposed leased area will be right around this area here. EXHIBIT A 2 This is a view from the Old Volcano Road looking towards the driveway towards the proposed leased area in the back of the subject properties. So, you can kind of see these are the storage containers, and that leased area is going to be around here. This site photo on the left is a view from the Old Volcano Road looking towards Volcano Village, and the photo on the right is the view from Old Volcano Road looking towards the Mountain View direction. This road also connects with Highway 11 or the main Volcano Road. The Planning Director recommends approval with conditions. And, in your packets, you've received colored copy pictures of a portion of Exhibit 1 to replace the black and white copies originally included. Please accept my apology for any inconvenience. This concludes my presentation. I'm happy to answer any questions that the Planning Commission may have. Thank you. HENKEL: Thank you, Shancy. Commissioners, are there any questions for staff? Will the Applicant or their representative please come forward? Hi, good morning. Would you please raise your right hand? Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter before the Planning Commission? MARTIN: I do. HENKEL: Thank you. Please state your name, where you reside, and continue speaking into the microphone. MARTIN: My name is Danette Martin, and I reside in Kailua-Kona. HENKEL: Do you have anything to add to the presentation? MARTIN: I do. I was late in sending out the notice of the hearing. I was a day late, and I sent it, sent the notice to the surrounding property owners priority mail because I was late. But, I have not received any phone calls concerning this application or any correspondence, negative impact statements. HENKEL: Okay. Isis that an issue? Jeffrey? DARROW: Thank you. Good morning, members of the Planning Commission. Ms. Martin did give us a call and let us know that she was on a trip, and when she returned, she had received the notice. It was one day after she was supposed to send it out, so she had mentioned about sending it out UPS or however— MARTIN: United States— DARROW: so that they would receive it in a, in a timely manner. Additionally, we've run into this situation in the past. When these, it's not as if it was an intentional situation, and if there was any response from the public in regards to like filing a petition for standing, we would EXHIBIT A 3 be flexible on the timeframe in regards to that as far as a recommendation to the Commission. So, if we would have received a petition untimely within the seven days that they were supposed to submit, we would still recommend that the Commission consider it as a timely submittal based on the, the time that the letters went out. In this particular situation, this application came in, in 2015. There was first and second notification done at that time, but then it was delayed. NobodyI mean, we did receive one response which was responded to in email but not a petition. When the application was requested to continue again, we asked the Applicant to again send out a first notification as well as second notification to the surrounding property owners. So, there has been a number of notifications that have been sent out to the surrounding property owners. HENKEL: Thank you, and we did get, I guess one letter. DARROW: Correct, that was in HENKEL: —You know, so they, they were notified DARROW: —2015. Yeah. It was some time ago. HENKEL: All right. Commissioners, any questions for the Applicant? CLARKSON: Yes, HENKEL: —Yes, Mr. Clarkson. CLARKSON: I have a couple of questions. One thing I noticed on the site plan is that the access road widths do not confirm to the Fire Department's requirements. Will you be reviewing that? MARTIN: There is a condition, there's one part, one of the conditions is that we, that we comply with all Fire regulations, and so I passed that comment along to our architect and asked him to address it. CLARKSON: Okay, and then the other question I have is regarding, well, the wind stability of the monopole. I notice the wind standard that it has to meet is a 105 miles per hour. MARTIN: Building Department standard, yeah. CLARKSON: Right. I'm still a little bit concerned about that in the case as in this case where if the pole actually did fall over in a windstorm or hurricane or tropical storm, it would impact structures. Do you have any comments about the history of failures of these kinds of poles in a windstorm? MARTIN: Yes, this has come up before when we did have a contested case and somebody brought that argument up, and so we did research, and we found that the majority of the failures, EXHIBIT A 4 or actually we couldn't find one that was a steel monopine. The towers that failed mostly were self-supporting, lattice -type towers, and those were, probably fell because they were not maintained. The case on the tower foundation is huge. If you saw it, you would probably not have as big a concern as you do. It's huge. And, then there are huge steel bolts that bolt this tower to the ground. CLARKSON: To the ground. MARTIN: So, II'm not aware of any failure from a steel monopole falling down. CLARKSON: Ok, then one last concern I have. The folic pine branches MARTIN: —Yes. CLARKSON: —that are attached to the tower, are those designed to break away in hurricanes? Remain with the tower? Are they hinged? MARTIN: There—they are designed to stay with the tower. CLARKSON: They will stay with the tower? MARTIN: Mm-hm, and they have the same wind standards CLARKSON: —They have the same wind standard as the MARTIN: the antennas, yes. CLARKSON: As the tower itself. MARTIN: And these, these towers are typically designed to withstand more wind than what's required because we build them for the possibility of co -location for future, you know, future antennas for co -location standards to comply with the zoning department's policy that we design for future carriers. So, most probably, this, this tower will be designed for two to three carriers. CLARKSON: And—and, the extra antennas would put more wind load on the towers so you start out with a much— MARTIN: That's right— CLARKSON: higher standard than MARTIN: That's right CLARKSON: required by this permit. MARTIN: Mm-hm. EXHIBIT A 5 CLARKSON: Okay, thank you. HENKEL: Any more questions? I'm sorry, you did indicate that you received the Director's Recommendation and conditions and MARTIN: —Yes. HENKEL: you're okay with all of those? MARTIN: Yes. HENKEL: Okay. Thank you. If, if that's it, then you may return to your seat. MARTIN: Okay. HENKEL: I have no one signed up to testify so if there is no one out there that wishes to testify on this matter, we could look for a motion to close public testimony. MIYASATO: I make a motion to close public testimony. IKEDA: I'll second. HENKEL: It's been moved by Commissioner Miyasato and seconded by Commissioner Ikeda to close public testimony. All in favor say, "aye." COMMISSIONERS: Aye. HENKEL: Opposed? Public testimony is closed at this point. So, now we would look for discussion and a motion to action. MIYASATO: Chair, I'd like to make a motion. I move that the application for Use Permit Docket No. USE 15-059 be approved based on the Planning Director's recommendations and findings, which shall be adopted. IKEDA: I'll second. HENKEL: It's been moved by Commissioner Miyasato and seconded by Commissioner Ikeda. Will you take a roll call vote, please, Shancy? WATANABE: Yes, thank you. Commissioner Clarkson? CLARKSON: Aye. WATANABE: Commissioner Ikeda? EXHIBIT A 6 IKEDA: Aye. WATANABE: Commissioner Miyasato? MIYASATO: Aye. WATANABE: And, Chair Henkel? HENKEL: Aye. WATANABE: The motion carries four, zero. Thank you. HENKEL: Thank you. That concludes Item No. 2. The discussion ended at 9:21 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Sarah Y. Hata-Finley, Secretary Windward Planning Commission EXHIBIT A 7