Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Land Use topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board hears debate and denies Verizon 195‑ft tower permit near Providence Forge

New Kent County Board of Supervisors · January 14, 2026
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

Planning staff and the applicant presented a conditional use permit for a 195‑foot Verizon monopole behind the Providence Forge refuse site; nearby landowners objected and the board moved to deny CUP‑4‑25 by roll call after discussion about rural character and limited emergency-service benefits.

The New Kent County Board of Supervisors on Jan. 13 considered conditional use permit CUP‑4‑25, a proposal by Cellco Partnership (Verizon Wireless) and Towers LLC (Vertical Bridge) to build a 195‑foot monopole telecommunications tower on county property adjacent to the Providence Forge refuse disposal site.

Planning staff presented the application, noting the site is in an A‑1 zoning district, is partially encumbered by Chesapeake Bay preservation areas (RPA/RMA) and would require compliance with environmental and site‑plan standards if the permit is approved. Staff recommended approval subject to standard conditions and added a five‑year expiration if construction had not started.

Applicant counsel Lisa Murphy described coverage gaps and the increasing reliance on wireless service for emergency communications and daily life, and said the proposal included space for three additional carriers and a county equipment position at the 85‑foot level. Planning staff and the applicant showed results of an October balloon test and photo simulations meant to assess visual impacts.

An adjacent landowner, Whitney Ward, testified in opposition, saying the tower would dominate the skyline, harm rural character and reduce property values and urging denial or alternate siting or co‑location on existing towers. Board members questioned whether the tower would significantly improve fire‑and‑rescue communications and balanced rural character concerns with service improvements.

Following discussion, a motion to deny CUP‑4‑25 was made and the board polled members by roll call. Votes recorded in the transcript show a roll‑call in support of denial; the motion to deny was recorded as approved in the meeting minutes.