Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Broadband Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Culpeper supervisors approve conditional use permit for Network Towers fiber hub with decommissioning, height limits
Summary
The Culpeper County Board of Supervisors on April 1 approved a conditional use permit for Network Towers LLC to build a fenced fiber hub compound in the Stevensburg district, adding a 12‑month decommissioning requirement and a 12‑foot height restriction as conditions of approval.
Get email alerts on the Broadband Infrastructure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Culpeper County Board of Supervisors on April 1 approved a conditional use permit for Network Towers LLC to construct and operate a fenced fiber hub facility on property at the corner of Zachary Taylor Highway (Route 522) and Cedar Grove Road in the Stevensburg magisterial district.
The board approved the permit with added conditions requiring equipment removal within 12 months if the use ceases and a 12‑foot cap on structure height; the motion passed 5‑2, the board announced.
The permit allows a roughly 98‑by‑98‑foot compound to house up to six precast concrete shelters but the applicant said it initially will install two shelters and two emergency generators. Drew Patterson, director of Network Towers, said the facility will “boost the fiber” and is designed so multiple providers along Route 522 can place equipment in the compound. “These facilities are absolutely necessary,” Patterson said, adding that “fiber does not function properly without being redistributed or reboosted.”
The planning commission had reviewed the case after a public hearing and, by a 7‑to‑1 vote, recommended approval with four conditions: build substantially in accord with the January 31, 2025 concept plan; reserve or expand space for vegetative screening per Appendix A, section 33‑9 and install screening if existing vegetation is lost; obtain any required site‑distance easements consistent with VDOT standards prior to site plan approval; and return to the board for any facility expansion.
Neighbors and landowners testified during the board’s public hearing. Charlotte Riley, speaking as a representative of the property owners, said the compound “will be out of sight, for the most part” and that she did not “see how it’s gonna have any adverse effect on any of the adjacent properties.” Sarah Schulte, who said she is one of the nearest homeowners, told the board there remain “a lot of unanswered questions” about safety and the project’s benefit to nearby homes.
Supervisor Gugino pressed the applicant during the hearing to increase screening and to limit future height or expansion; Patterson said the company had moved the compound about 1,000 feet farther from Route 522 and placed it inside the existing tree line after earlier planning commission concern about visibility. Patterson also said the shelters will be concealed by a brown composite fence and that if trees are removed the applicant will be required to replant screening.
Board members discussed taxation and long‑term obligations. Patterson said county tax assessments “would be based on square footage of the facility and an estimate of personal property within the facility” and that Network Towers would comply with the assessor’s methodology. He also said three‑phase power is available at the site and that the applicant would remove the facility if the technology ceases to be used.
Supervisor Rosenberger reminded the public that proffers apply to rezoning applications and are not applicable to conditional use permits. Several supervisors — including Bates and Underwood — spoke in favor of the motion, noting county efforts to expand broadband access across rural areas and that a shared hub can support multiple providers.
The board’s approval carries the planning commission’s screening and site‑distance conditions, the added 12‑month decommissioning timeline for removal if the use ceases, and the 12‑foot height restriction on shelters. The planning commission had also required that any expansion of the compound return to the board for approval.
Votes at a glance: the board announced the motion carried 5‑2. Individual supervisor votes were not read into the record.

