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 8 · column 3 of 5 · from the scan, no model involved
rifices for the benefit of their neighbors — which is implicit in the Telecommunications Act.
“Various counties around us have done different things,” he continued. “Some have basically adopted a passive, ‘go wherever you want attitude,’ to a ‘no, never’ attitude.”
Most have adopted a special permitting process, whereby application may be made, subject to public hearings, reviews, and setting of certain conditions.
“Issues such as the impact on views and the impact on residential areas are considered,” said McCarthy.
And litigation is always a possibility, as demonstrated in other areas.
“Seven months ago, the City of Virginia Beach had a decision out of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals that basically upheld their right to say no in certain cases” involving new communications towers, according to McCarthy.
“This was largely because of the impact on residential areas,” he continued. “But the ruling of the court was that the input of the public and the impact of these towers on the public is a valid use” of local regulatory power.
“The ruling also made it abundantly clear that a public record of soliciting public input is vital to sustain any local government regulation,” McCarthy added.
McCarthy hopes that the public hearing on March 18 will answer three basic questions:
1) What does the industry need here to provide cellular service;
2) What is the public willing to accept, in terms of the infrastructure necessary to provide service; and
3) What regulations are we (Rappahannock County) going to impose in order to reconcile numbers 1 and 2?
Options include amendments to existing ordinances, or a new, stand alone ordinance, according to McCarthy.
95.4%