Pittsylvania County BZA approves four special use permits, including two 199‑ft Verizon towers

The Pittsylvania County Board of Zoning Appeals on May 11 approved four special use permits, including two nearly 199‑foot wireless towers proposed by Verizon and a permit allowing a local couple to place a manufactured home on family land.

The decisions came after staff readings of each case and presentations from applicants and their representatives. Kelly Smith, the county’s senior planner and zoning administrator, read the petitions and summarized the Planning Commission recommendations that accompanied each application.

Applicants Antonio and Casey Soto asked for permission to place a manufactured home on 3.13 acres along U.S. Highway 29 in the Callands‑Gretna election district, saying modular homes were beyond their price range and that the family had owned the property for more than 60 years. The Planning Commission had recommended approval on April 7, 2026. Mr. Yaman moved to grant the special use permit and Mr. Craddock seconded; the board approved the request and the chair congratulated the Sotos.

Williams Mullen attorney Brian W. Prater presented two separate Verizon proposals for wireless telecommunications facilities. For the Callands‑Gretna Chalk Level Road site (Case S26‑012), Prater described a monopole measured as a 195‑foot pole plus a 4‑foot lightning rod for a total height just under 200 feet; the project includes a roughly 100‑by‑100‑foot fenced compound, setbacks (more than 400 feet from the right‑of‑way and about 350 feet from the nearest residence), and no FAA‑required lighting. Prater said Verizon had identified a coverage deficit in the area and that the facility is expected to “improve 4G 5G um text and voice in the immediate areas, which will help your 911 first responders” and local businesses that rely on wireless payment systems. Board members requested data showing the projected service area and gains, which Prater said had been identified by Verizon but were not provided during the hearing. The BZA approved the SUP and added the staff‑recommended condition that the permit expire if construction does not commence within 24 months.

A second Verizon site (Case S26‑013, Climax Road) was presented in similar terms: a nearly 199‑foot monopole with co‑location capacity, substantial setbacks from the road and nearby residences, and no FAA lights. The Planning Commission recommended approval but the record noted there had been opposition at the Planning Commission hearing; Prater said his team had not had subsequent conversations with those individuals. The board voted to grant the SUP and included the same 24‑month commencement condition consistent with Virginia State Code.

The board also approved Case S26‑014, a request from Dakota Tim on behalf of Cascade Virginia USA Holdings for a public garage on 17.28 acres on U.S. Highway 58 (Martinsville Highway) in the Tunstall election district. The Planning Commission recommended approval with conditions, including that the garage be used for storage only and that repair activities be restricted; board discussion focused on whether screening or other inoperable‑vehicle provisions were necessary and on tying the SUP to the submitted site development plan. The board’s motion adopted the Planning Commission’s recommended conditions and added a requirement that development proceed in substantial conformance with the submitted site plan.

None of the four cases drew public speakers in opposition at the BZA hearing; the chair closed each public hearing after asking for speakers. Where members asked for clarifying details—particularly the Verizon presentations—applicants or their attorneys answered questions but did not provide additional technical coverage maps during the meeting.

The meeting record does not show a roll‑call vote tally for each individual member on the public record; motions were seconded and the chair recorded that the motion carried for each case. The board adjourned at about 6:36 p.m.

Quotes drawn from the hearing include Antonio Soto, the applicant in Case S26‑011, explaining the family’s request: “we would like a place of our own to start a family and my family has owned that land for many years now, over 60 years.” On the tower proposals, attorney Brian W. Prater described the design and public‑safety rationale: “Proposed tower is 199 ft tall…It will increase coverage and Verizon Wireless has identified a deficit in this area and what that will do is improve 4G 5G um text and voice in the immediate areas, which will help your 911 first responders, GPS, citizens, any businesses.”

What happens next: permits include standard implementation conditions. The two wireless permits carry a condition limiting the commencement window to 24 months if no construction or activity begins; the garage SUP was approved subject to the Planning Commission conditions and the added requirement that the project be built in substantial conformance with the site development plan submitted to staff.

(Reporters: the meeting transcript notes occasional variations in the spelling of some board members’ names in the record; references in this article use the spellings as introduced during the roll call.)