Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Telecommunications topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Grayson County planning commission recommends special-use permit for Verizon cell tower in Flatridge area

2360042 · February 19, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Grayson County Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of a special-use permit for a Verizon Wireless communications tower at 573 Chestnut Ridge Road in the Flatridge area and forwarded the application to the Board of Supervisors with conditions.

The Grayson County Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of a special-use permit for a communications tower proposed by Cellco Partnership, doing business as Verizon Wireless, for property at 573 Chestnut Ridge Road in the Flatridge area and forwarded the application to the Board of Supervisors with conditions.

Planning staff summarized the application and recommended approval, saying the project meets the county’s zoning requirements for communications towers and would expand wireless coverage in the northwest part of Grayson County. "For the purpose of public necessity, convenience, general welfare, public safety and health, and good zoning practice, I recommend approval of the special use permit application," planning staff said in their recommendation to the commission.

The applicant described the site and design details. Laurie Schweller, representing Cellco Partnership/Verizon Wireless, said the proposed tower would sit on a wooded parcel west of Flatridge Road and that the applicant intends the tower to serve a northwest portion of the county currently lacking reliable service. Sean Chai of Ammon Consulting LLC, who is managing the project, described the foundation and engineering approach for the monopole.

Key project details in the application and staff report included: a lease/lease-area and equipment compound (a 25-by-80-foot lease area with a 50-by-50-foot equipment compound and a Verizon lease space of roughly 12-by-20 feet); a proposed six-foot chain-link fence with barbed wire; a reserved county space at the 40-foot mark on the tower; a natural tree buffer and a requested waiver of additional landscaping; and a requirement that the tower be removed within 90 days of abandonment as provided in the county ordinance.

Planning staff and the applicant said the county building official must review and approve final design and that the structure must meet applicable building-code wind and structural standards. The applicant said colocation capacity for additional providers is included in the design and that technicians are expected to visit the site roughly six to 12 times per year.

A member of the public with a deeded interest in an adjoining parcel, Joe Hesch, addressed the commission during the public hearing. Hesch said his family has owned the land for more than a century and asked, "what is the real benefit to Grayson County, both tax wise and otherwise?" He also asked about visual impacts, the potential for future towers and use of Chestnut Ridge Road for construction access.

Planning staff and the applicant answered questions during the hearing. Staff noted the application was advertised and that adjoining landowners had been notified; the staff report stated no direct contacts expressing opposition had been received prior to the hearing. Staff also noted the Grayson County comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance address communications infrastructure and cited ordinance provisions relevant to setbacks, landscaping, and removal of abandoned towers.

Outstanding items and conditions identified at the meeting included (1) final building-department review for code compliance and verified wind‑speed design, (2) confirmation from the Federal Aviation Administration on lighting requirements (applicants said they had filed for clarification and expected an updated FAA determination), and (3) the waiver of additional landscaping based on existing tree cover. Planning staff said machinery/tools tax revenue would apply to the facility, but the amount was "not specified" in the meeting record.

The commission made a motion to forward the application to the Board of Supervisors "as presented" with the conditions noted in the staff report. The transcript records the motion and a second and shows the commission moved to forward the recommendation; the transcript does not record a roll-call vote tally for that motion. The Board of Supervisors will consider the special-use permit and the outstanding items listed above at a future meeting.