Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Telecommunications topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission approves two 199‑foot communications towers in separate applications
Summary
The commission approved special-exception permits for two 199‑foot monopole communication towers — one by Cellco Partnership (Verizon) on Skyline Road and one by Towers LLC (Tunstall Farm). Applicants said the towers will improve coverage and allow carrier colocation.
Get email alerts on the Telecommunications topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Mecklenburg County Planning Commission approved special‑exception permits for two 199‑foot monopole communication towers at separate locations after brief presentations and roll‑call/voice votes.
Cellco Partnership (Verizon Wireless) sought permission for a 199‑foot monopole and a 50‑by‑50 fenced compound on parcel 38231 on Skyline Road in Election District 6. Sean Chai of VCI, representing Verizon, told the commission the structure is a 195‑foot monopole plus a 4‑foot lightning rod, and that Verizon will be the anchor tenant with space for additional carriers. Chai said the satellite network cannot handle the kind of call capacity local users require and described towers as necessary to provide coverage: “We have to have the network…The satellite system couldn’t handle the load.”
A commissioner recommended approval, saying the tower “will not be detrimental to public welfare” and will “provide better cell service and internet connection to the area.” That motion was seconded and carried on voice vote.
The commission also approved a 199‑foot monopole application from Towers LLC for the Tunstall Farm Tower (Highway 15, Election District 9). The applicant said this application had been before the commission in December and had only minor plan tweaks; the updated materials show the county would have an opportunity to colocate at about 100 feet. The applicant declined repeated photo simulations to save time; commissioners moved, seconded and approved the permit.
Both approvals were recorded as motions carried; the transcript does not show recorded conditions attached to either motion. Applicants indicated each site is zoned AG and both proposals included colocating opportunities for additional carriers.

