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 4 · column 2 of 3 · from the scan, no model involved
The Sprint PCS application to build seven tall unsightly towers
in the county continues to be a moving target, due to the company's apparent inability to decide whether it wants to take the high road and accommodate to our zoning ordinances and comprehensive plan, or continue on the low road toward litigation that has marked their style thus far.
Rather than explaining and defending their application in a public hearing scheduled before our Planning Commission in October, Sprint Filed a technical legal appeal to our Board of Zoning Appeals, contesting such standard requirements as setting back the proposed towers from property lines and informing affected neighbors of their plans. In effect, the appeal challenges the legal legitimacy, authority and applicability of our local ordinances.
Most recently, just last week, the company requested and was granted a 30-day extension before the BZA appeal is heard so it can consider modifying its application to make it more palatable to the community.
The company already knows from its community contacts that its application is in trouble. As I said in an e-mail to the Sprint team and its lawyers nearly a month ago, I believe this application is so fundamentally flawed that the company would be well-advised to withdraw it and start over. Sprint should expect that an application containing any of these seven proposed towers will meet with considerable community opposition.
If Sprint seeks constructive "dialogue" with the community, as its chief lawyer said in an e-mail response, it should withdraw its legalistic challenge now. No such dialogue will take place in an adversarial BZA hearing, which will only exacer
89.7%