Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Telecommunications Tower topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Residents tell supervisors they were not notified about 300-foot tower sited near homes

Nottoway County Board of Supervisors · May 16, 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

Two residents told the board they were not notified of a proposed 300-foot telecommunications tower that appears to sit about 33 feet from a property line and asked supervisors to rescind a setback waiver and require fuller notice and environmental and health reviews.

Theresa Hines, who said she owns property at 6039 Old Nottoway Road, told the Nottoway County Board of Supervisors she closed on the house in August 2024 and only recently discovered markers showing a 300‑foot telecommunications tower will sit roughly 33 feet from her property line. "Neither I nor my daughter were ever notified of the tower or public hearings to discuss the tower," Hines said, asking the board to "reconsider and rescind the setback waiver until all matters can be appropriately heard and discussed."

Another commenter, identified in the transcript as Bridial/Bridal Spivey, urged caution about the health implications of placing a tower near homes and schools and asked the board to commission a comprehensive environmental and health impact assessment. Spivey cited studies and recommended a precautionary approach for siting towers near children and animals. "I respectfully request that the board would reconsider the proposed location of the telecommunications tower, ensure that a comprehensive environmental and health impact assessment is conducted, [and] prioritize alternative sites away from schools, homes, and other areas with high concentration of children and animals," the speaker said.

Board members acknowledged the speakers' concerns and discussed notification and the prior public hearing process. One supervisor asked whether the public had access to the information in time to attend February hearings and staff said the hearing was advertised and copies were made available; at least one supervisor asked for follow‑up to confirm whether affected property owners received mailed notice. No formal vote on the tower siting or the setback waiver occurred during this meeting; several supervisors said they would meet with residents and staff to review the record and clarify next steps.