11 Replies to “cell tower”

  1. Veda Bateman

    On Google, look up Tucker Baker who owns the estate located on 3509 Blow Drive where he plans to lease a portion of his property for the Cell Tower.

  2. James Hamilton

    My family has several properties on Blow Dr. and would be very interested in acquiring at least two “NO CELL TOWER” yard signs. If there are any signs to be had and they could be taken to 3536 Blow, or if I could pick them up, I’d greatly appreciate it. Feel free to contact me directly by whatever medium is most convenient for whomever is in charge of distributing them.

    – James Hamilton
    Representative, KCDP District 9
    865 809 3685

  3. Veda Bateman

    Laura, Branch Towers (Baker) property, including Speedwell Heritage, are zoned Agriculture…not Residential; this A zone permits livestock on Speedwell property. Adjoining areas must be rezoned. As I recall, our LHHA Restrictive Covenants began just South of Circle Lake to the northern tip of our peninsula. I built my house on 3608 Blow Drive and still live here. Graf does not want to continue as Lakehills President; Laura, you may be just right for that job at this T-Mobile time…we need a young business woman. Veda

  4. Marianne Oliveira

    Anything that detracts from the beauty and the natural environment of the LH community is a blight to us all we own property next to our house that we will never sell because we love the forest and ithe birds and animals that depend on it. We can’t imagine allowing anyone to build a cell phone tower there. And just to note, we have no problem in LH with cellular connections with our phones despite multiple carriers over the years.

  5. Veda Bateman

    First, Except for Speedwell Heritage, Velmetta Circle and Baker property which are now zoned agriculture, should be re-zoned to residential, one family, no rentals. Rentals devalue property as well as cell towers. This whole cell scenario was premeditated by Baker & T-Mobile. We need to determine when and go to MPC en-masse. Veda

    • Laura Ward

      The original Lakemoor Hills Restrictive Covenants were drafted in 1950. While the original owners and residents of this neighborhood could not know about the future of cell towers, they did make it abundantly clear that this area should be limited to single family residential properties. I’m no lawyer, but I believe that this sets out the limitations pretty clearly. (note: only relevant sections have been posted here)

      Per the Lakemoor Hills Restrictive Covenants:
      “1. All lots in Lakemoor Hills Subdivision shall be used for residential purposes only, no detached garage or other outbuilding shall be erected on the premises…”

      “2. Only one single family residence shall be erected on any one residential lot as indicated on the subdivision plat.”

      “3. No building of any kind shall be erected, placed, constructed or altered on any building plot in this subdivision until the completed plans, specifications and plot plan showing the location of such building or alteration shall have been approved in writing by the Board of Directors of the Lakemoor Corporation, the determination of the Board of Directors to be final, conclusive, and binding on the parties….”

      “6. No advertising or commercial signs shall be exhibited or displayed in said subdivision.”

      “11. If the owners of any lot covered by these restrictions or any of their heirs or assigns, shall violate or attempt to violate any of the covenants or restrictions herein, it shall be lawful for any person or persons owning other lot or lots in said tract or development to prosecute any proceedings at law or in equity against the person or persons violating or attempting to violate any such covenants or restrictions to prevent him or them from so doing, it being agreed that any violation of any of these covenants or restrictions shall constitute irreparable injury which cannot be compensated for by a monetary recovery and the measure of which cannot be ascertained, and that an injunction may be issued to prevent any such violation or threatened violation…These covenants are to run with the land and shall be binding on all parties and all persons claiming under them until January 1, 2000, at which time said covenants shall be automatically extended for successive periods of ten years unless by a vote of majority of the then owners of the lots it is agreed to change said covenants in whole or in part.”

    • Dana Hughes

      Howdy, we’re going to be neighbors soon. We drove through the neighborhood and saw all the cell tower signs. I hadn’t heard anything about it before. Can you tell me where they’re proposing to put it? I can’t imagine that it would go through!

Leave a Reply