Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Telecommunications topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board backs Cellco/Verizon tower permit; company offers negotiable county access

Halifax County Board of Supervisors & Planning Commission (joint) · October 22, 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 planning commission and board recommended/approved a Cellco (Verizon) conditional use permit for a roughly 199‑foot communications tower; the applicant said the tower is designed for co‑location and that county access could be negotiated for a fee but cannot be required by state law.

Halifax County’s planning commission recommended and the board voted to approve a conditional use permit for a Cellco (Verizon) communications tower in Election District 3.

Tom Johnson, attorney for the applicant, told the boards the proposal is for a 195‑foot tower with a 4‑foot lightning rod (199 feet total) and that, because of its height, the tower would not require obstruction lighting. Johnson said the site is set back and designed to minimize tree removal and visibility. "It’s a 195 foot tower with a 4 foot lightning rod, hence a 199 feet," Johnson said.

County staff and supervisors discussed prior Beacon Towers work and concerns about towers built but not equipped with providers. Johnson said the owner (Vertical Bridge/parent company referenced in the record) is willing to reserve space for county use but, under state law, cannot be required to provide that space free of charge; any county use would require separate negotiation. The applicant and the tower engineer said the design accommodates four carriers plus county equipment for co‑location.

Supervisors asked about construction timing and the cost to place county equipment on the tower. The applicant said the company expected to construct within roughly six months to two years after approvals (applicant gave a 6–12 month target in discussion but noted no firm timetable) and that pricing for county colocated equipment would be negotiated at the time of request.

The planning commission moved to recommend approval, the board carried the motion, and the applicant reiterated willingness to remove unused towers if necessary. The permit was carried by voice vote in the record.

What’s next: Applicant may proceed with required permits and coordination for FAA/telecommunications filings as required; county staff can pursue a negotiated agreement if it chooses to place equipment on the tower.