Planning board approves special-use permit for cell tower at 353 Mark Road

The Rockingham County Planning Board voted unanimously Aug. 11 to approve a special-use permit for a wireless telecommunications tower proposed at 353 Mark Road, a county parcel identified in the record by tax PIN 799519523065.

The board heard the matter as a quasi‑judicial evidentiary hearing; planning staff told the board the application, required site plans, a balloon test and a third‑party structural engineering review were on file and meet the Unified Development Ordinance criteria the board must apply. Patton Hahn, attorney for the applicant, said the primary tenant will be Verizon and that the tower is intended to fill a significant gap in coverage and capacity in the area.

The application materials, staff report and a third‑party engineer’s report were entered into the record. “The primary tenant on this tower will be Verizon, which needs to fill a substantial gap in its wireless coverage and capacity in this area,” attorney Patton Hahn told the board. Staff also reported that a third‑party engineering review recommended approval based on structural integrity and that a balloon test had been performed and noticed as required.

Applicant representatives said the tower is being proposed as a leased installation on the property; the applicant’s team told the board the tower is designed to accommodate multiple carriers and that Verizon would occupy one of four available equipment positions. The applicant and staff described fall‑zone setback measurements as approximately 158 feet to the south property line and about 185 feet, 5 inches to the southwest property line; the application materials show the site meets the ordinance setback requirements.

There was discussion about coverage radius and nearby towers. The applicant provided propagation maps intended to show service gaps; the maps in the record were described in the hearing as covering roughly 1.75 to 2 miles, and attorneys for the applicant said there are no existing towers within the smaller radius shown on the maps. Board members and applicant representatives noted coverage distance varies with terrain, tree cover and other factors; applicant representatives estimated modeling showed effective service roughly one to 1.5 miles from the site, with actual distance dependent on local conditions.

Before taking the final vote, the acting chairman read the quasi‑judicial rules that govern special‑use hearings and administered oaths to witnesses who intended to testify. After questions from board members and confirmation from staff that ordinance criteria were met, a board member moved to approve the special‑use permit based on the evidentiary determinations and any additional agreed conditions; the motion was seconded and approved by voice/hand raise as unanimous.

The board also handled routine procedural business at the Aug. 11 meeting: it adopted the meeting agenda and approved the minutes of the June 9 meeting by unanimous voice vote, and it confirmed final approval of a previously approved May 12 special‑use permit for an unrelated applicant (Kristen Edwards). Planning staff indicated that, for special‑use permits, the planning board is the final decision‑maker in the county’s process for these cases.

The applicant team at the hearing included attorney Patton Hahn, counsel Rachel Boyd, Donnie Pell of Southern Towers and Mark Samco of Colliers Engineering. The board introduced Nicholas Duncan as a new planner on staff during the meeting.

The board’s approval allows the applicant to proceed with the permits and construction steps required by county procedures and any conditions the board placed on the approval. The record contains the application materials, the staff report, the third‑party structural report and the balloon‑test documentation for the approved site.