Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Communications Tower Conditional Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hearing on proposed Drift Inn communications tower continued to July 24 after technical Q&A
Summary
The Board continued a conditional‑use hearing for a proposed monopole (planned 195 ft, 199 ft with lightning rod) at 40951 Newmarket Turner Road to July 24, allowing the applicant to finish technical presentations and resolve outstanding agency-review issues including access easements and departmental notifications.
The Board of Appeals opened the conditional‑use hearing on June 12 for CUAP 25‑0035, a proposed communications monopole on a residential parcel at 40951 Newmarket Turner Road in Mechanicsville, and continued the matter to July 24 after lengthy technical discussion and public‑notice issues.
Applicant Telecom Capital Group (TCG) presented engineers and an RF (radio frequency) analysis showing a coverage gap for a lead carrier (Verizon) that the proposed monopole would fill; the firm described the proposal as a 195‑foot monopole with total height 199 feet including lightning protection and a 42‑by‑60‑foot equipment compound. TCG said the tower would be engineered to accommodate at least three future co‑locating carriers and that fall‑zone engineering shows collapse would be contained within the compound.
Staff noted that several departmental reviews (DPW, Soil Conservation District and SMECO) were pending and that Land Use and Growth Management could not finalize site‑plan approval until the conditional use was decided. The board asked for clarification on county notice and whether emergency services had been offered first right of refusal for co‑location; counsel and applicant said the county may request colocation and that Telecom Capital would offer space but that it is customary for departments to request space as the project proceeds.
TCG’s representatives presented photo simulations taken in leaf‑off conditions and engineering exhibits showing setbacks from residences and the compound location. Neighboring property owners and other members of the public reserved comment while the board posed detailed engineering questions about access routes, deeded easements, setback distances, and the composition of the base (generator vs. battery backup). The applicant said batteries are increasingly used and that generators would run only during power outages; the engineering team described the tower’s storm‑resistance design and stated they had not experienced a tower collapse in decades and that towers are designed to fold within themselves in a catastrophic failure.
Because the meeting ran against the room’s IT cutoff time and the applicant had not completed the technical presentation and public testimony, the board continued the hearing to July 24 at 6:30 p.m. The applicant agreed to provide additional documentation on access easements, engineering fall‑zone calculations and departmental notifications before the continued hearing.
