Following is a list of errors corrected, and clarifications about terms found on this website.
There is confusion regarding the definition of a residential area, vs. residential district (zone), and this is an important point that should be addressed by the Catoosa County Planning Commission.
In other ordinances within the Catoosa County Code, residential area implies a parcel with a residential property class, or possibly the area around a residence. See the following:
In regard to the press release issued April 14, 2014:
Press Release referred to proposed site location as “residential area”. In fact, the location is an R-4 Residential property class code parcel, located in an A-1 Agricultural district zone. Proposed site location is bordered by residential property class parcels with existing residences.
Land use of the proposed site location is R-4, and neighboring Catoosa County parcels are classed as residential use R-3 or R-4, principal use being residential. In that sense, proposed site is a residential area, though it is not situated in a residential district zone. Additionally, the land lot (309) of the proposed site location substantially contains an R-1 district and partially contains an R-3 district (most of which is in lot 310).
Neighboring property in Walker County Lot 16 is zoned R2 Residential.
Info flyers and press release speculated the distance between tower and nearest residences to be less than 1,000′, based on approximate geographic coordinates of the possible tower site. While this has not been professionally surveyed, this distance would appear to be valid, based on geographic coordinates listed in the public site plan document, compared to location data available via Catoosa County tax parcel map online tools.
Distance from the proposed tower site to neighboring residences has not been established.
In regard to pages, posts, and documents found on this website:
Info flyers speculated the distance between tower and nearest residences to be less than 700′, based on approximate geographic coordinates of the possible tower site. While this has not been professionally surveyed, this distance would appear to be valid, based on geographic coordinates listed in the public site plan document, compared to location data available via Catoosa County tax parcel map online tools.
Property owner Rodney Richardson read info flyer and objected to the speculated distance between proposed tower site and nearest residences. I (Chris Gilligan) explained how the distances were calculated and asked Richardson to clarify distances with Planning & Zoning Office. Richardson has not replied.
Info flyers and web pages referred to the proposed site property as “residential property”. In fact, it is an R-4 Residential property class code parcel, located in an A-1 Agricultural district zone. Info flyer has been edited to remove reference to “residential property”.
Tower base height was listed in press release, web site and info flyers as 960′ elevation, based on topographic map observation. In fact, the proposed tower base would be at 977′ MSL elevation, based on the public site plan document.
History of Cell Tower Plan
Revised dates of owner contact regarding tower siting proposal: 2012-13 revised to 2013-14.
Image of Proposed Tower Site
Revised placement of tower site.
Chris Gilligan
423-486-0122
chris@chrisgilligan.net
