Hawaii County Council adopts overhaul of telecom rules with 600-foot setback and planning approval

The Hawaii County Council on June 18 adopted Bill 24 (Draft 6), an overhaul of county regulations for telecommunication antennas and towers, at second and final reading after a period of public testimony and council discussion.

Bill 24 updates Hawaii County Code chapter 25 (articles 1, 2, 4, 5 and 7) to change application requirements and siting standards for towers and antennas, remove the contested-case allowance, allow telecommunications facilities in more zoning districts, require planning director approval for permits, and set a 600-foot minimum setback from residences and school buildings. The council approved the measure by voice vote; the clerk declared the motion carried with nine ayes.

The change matters because it responds to competing goals raised in testimony: community members said they want connectivity but asked the council to limit onsite risks and preserve neighborhood character; industry and planners sought a regulatory framework that complies with state law and federal constraints. The ordinance explicitly exempts “telecom facilities for first responders” from the setback requirement to preserve emergency communications.

Public testimony before the vote ran more than an hour and featured repeated calls for larger setbacks, independent health studies, and clearer notice and decommissioning rules. Corey Harden, representing Sierra Club Hawaii Island Group, asked the council to require “proof of delivery” of notice, to include nearby property owners in notice lists, to require decommissioning plans and bonds, and to prohibit certain materials in fake-tree (“monopine”) structures because of environmental concerns. Deborah Green, founding director of Safetec Hawaii, told the council they supported Bill 24 as written and said the draft strikes “a decent balance between the needs of the community for their safety and welfare and the needs of the telecom industry to provide connectivity.” Naomi Milamed, Big Island leader for Safetec Hawaii, urged adoption of the bill while noting it is a first step and saying the 600-foot setback is a “minimum.”

Planning Department staff described how the ordinance would be applied. Jeff Darrow, Planning Director, confirmed the 600-foot measurement in the current draft is taken from the identified tower location to the closest school building or residence (not from parcel lines) and said the department would be open to future discussion about measuring from property boundaries rather than building footprints. Councilmembers referenced a prior 1,200-foot setback and noted the current draft reflects a compromise arrived at after consultation with fire officials and others.

The council recorded the motion to adopt Bill 24 (Draft 6) at second and final reading as moved by Councilmember Kerkowitz and seconded by Councilmember Villegas. The clerk announced the motion carried with nine ayes and no recorded no votes.

The ordinance will appear in the county legislative record as Bill 24 (Draft 6); the transcript does not specify an ordinance number or effective date. The council and planning staff flagged that state and federal law limit the county’s authority on some technical and safety matters, and the measure was described repeatedly as an effort to bring county code into alignment with state law while preserving local siting controls where possible.

Copies of submitted materials referenced during testimony — including binders and meta-analyses provided to council members and a previously adopted county resolution about wireless infrastructure — were delivered to the council and entered into the record by testifiers.

Looking ahead, councilmembers indicated they may revisit measurement language (building footprint vs. property boundary) in future code amendments, and several testifiers said they would continue to press for larger setbacks or additional studies.

Action: The council adopted Bill 24 (Draft 6) on second and final reading (motion to adopt moved by Councilmember Kerkowitz; seconded by Councilmember Villegas). The clerk announced the motion carried with nine ayes. No ordinance number or effective date was specified in the transcript.