Block · one region of the page, as the scanner read it. It may hold a whole story, part of one, several, or an advertisement; stitching blocks into articles is the next step. Text is supplied OCR.
Page 1 · column 4 of 4 · from the scan, no model involved
Many ot the same objections were raised by residents again Monday. They included: noise pollution; the effects of such a facility on water quality in the river; the light generated by such a facility in the area; the traffic generated by construction; the fact that the church would pay no taxes (since it is non-profit) but would use county services such as fire/rescue; and the accessibility of the road annually for those using the facility (for most the major issue).
County Administrator John McCarthy told the supervisors that he never got to the point of answering questions on the other issues because he couldn’t get past the “getting the bodies to the property” to make it go. He had recommended to the commission that the application be denied based on “the use’s impact on the transportation infrastructure that serves the property.”
He said he didn’t agree with the numbers the church had for trips on the road because it didn’t take into account the trips for services to the property and those would add 30 to 40 percent to their figures for a facility of that size.
The real question, McCarthy said, is whether or not it is in the best interest of citizens of the county to have the facility and he could not say it is based on how the facility would affect that area. He said since the zoning ordinance allows
See BOARD, Page A8
92.8%