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 7 · from the scan, no model involved
the county ask Sprint to put up balloons at proposed sites and to the proposed tower heights so that residents can visually gauge the impacts of the towers.
John Kiser suggested that the Sprint application is "out of compliance" with the ordinance, and that Sprint should be told to "go back to the drawing board."
Phil Irwin reminded attendees that the county set a precedent a quarter of a century ago when it successfully took on a public utility and he said that "we should set a precedent again." Pat Saltonstall noted that the proposed Ben Venue tower is in an agricultural/forestal district, and said that committing to participation in such a district, as she did, guarantees "protection from industrial or commercial intrusions of any kind." Ms. Saltonstall characterized the siting of a tower in an agricultural/forestal district as a "violation of prior agreements with landowners," and she suggested that the county obtain an opinion from the Attorney General of Virginia regarding this issue.
Ms. Saltonstall raised other key issues in her statement, and concluded by asking: "to the tower landowners, how could you settle for so little for allowing so much harm to our precious land and to your neighbors?"
RLEP President Jim Gannon commented that he reviewed the application and "wondered whether they [Sprint/PCS] even read the ordinance . . . they're giving you the Frank Sinatra song— I'll do it my way." Bill Dietel said that "This is the hottest issue to confront the county. The only way we'll come out of this together is to slow this thing to a crawl . . ."
County Administrator John McCarthy said that it was important to keep a record of all proceedings related to the application review process, and he noted that the
95.5%