Madison planners advance Verizon/Towers LLC application after county asks for technical proof of need
August 06, 2025 | Madison County, Virginia
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
Madison County planning staff agreed on a motion to send an application from Towers LLC — representing Verizon Wireless and tower-owner Vertical Bridge — to the county Planning Commission once the applicant submits the technical and application materials required by Madison County zoning ordinance 14-13-10.
The application seeks a special-use permit for a 125-foot monopole (129 feet overall including a 4-foot lightning rod) on a 1.7-acre parcel owned by Madison Wood Preservers (Madison County tax map 48-25). Stuart Squire, a land-use consultant representing Verizon Wireless, told the board the installation is intended to relieve overloaded capacity on nearby facilities and increase data capacity in the town of Madison and along Route 29.
County staff emphasized the applicant must document why existing sites cannot accommodate added capacity. Alan Nichols, a county planning staff member, told the commission the submission requirements at section 14-13-10 include an engineer’s written statement addressing technical data, a scheduled balloon test, and the advertising requirements needed for public notice. The board also highlighted section 14-13-6, which allows the county to require a third-party technical review at the applicant’s expense.
Squire said Verizon’s radio engineers documented “overloaded capacity on the surrounding towers,” and that the new facility is intended to offload traffic from two nearby sites (identified in the packet as Shelby at the fairgrounds and Zeus about three miles north). He described the proposed site as wooded, with the monopole center about 60 feet inside the property to avoid a creek and wetlands, a 12-foot gravel access drive from North Frontage Road, and no lighting on the tower. He said the facility will support Verizon’s latest technologies and “will be 5G initially” and will “support all of Verizon’s technologies.”
Supervisors and commissioners pressed the applicant to show why capacity — not coverage — required a new freestanding structure, noting Verizon service is visible in town now and that county ordinance encourages maximizing existing support structures and joint use where feasible. The board asked for data demonstrating that (1) existing towers cannot be reconfigured or shared to meet the stated capacity needs and (2) the proposed tower’s design and location meet fall-radius, setback, and height rules in the R-1 zoning context. Nichols clarified that the parcel is zoned R-1 but currently vacant, and the ordinance language restricting towers on lots whose principal use is single-family residential applies differently where no residence exists now.
Board members also discussed procedural items: whether the county would require a third-party technical review (the ordinance allows the county to do so and to bill the applicant for the consultant cost, not to exceed 2.5 times the zoning application fee), how the planning commission will determine the need for that review, and that the applicant must provide the engineer’s technical narrative and other items listed in 14-13-10 before the planning commission hearing. The board noted that some submission items — such as a validated fall-radius plan and a balloon test — should be included in the application packet.
The recorded motion (mover/second not clearly identified on the record) was to forward the application to the Planning Commission once all 14-13-10 submission requirements had been provided to staff. The motion was seconded and approved by voice vote with no recorded opposition. No special-use permit decision was made at the workshop; the action was procedural to advance the application for full review.
Next steps: the applicant will return with a complete submission (engineer’s technical statement, balloon test schedule and visual simulations, fall-radius calculations and setbacks, and required public notices). The Planning Commission will then decide whether to accept Verizon’s technical materials or to require a third-party review, as allowed under the ordinance. No building or construction authorization was granted at this meeting.
The application seeks a special-use permit for a 125-foot monopole (129 feet overall including a 4-foot lightning rod) on a 1.7-acre parcel owned by Madison Wood Preservers (Madison County tax map 48-25). Stuart Squire, a land-use consultant representing Verizon Wireless, told the board the installation is intended to relieve overloaded capacity on nearby facilities and increase data capacity in the town of Madison and along Route 29.
County staff emphasized the applicant must document why existing sites cannot accommodate added capacity. Alan Nichols, a county planning staff member, told the commission the submission requirements at section 14-13-10 include an engineer’s written statement addressing technical data, a scheduled balloon test, and the advertising requirements needed for public notice. The board also highlighted section 14-13-6, which allows the county to require a third-party technical review at the applicant’s expense.
Squire said Verizon’s radio engineers documented “overloaded capacity on the surrounding towers,” and that the new facility is intended to offload traffic from two nearby sites (identified in the packet as Shelby at the fairgrounds and Zeus about three miles north). He described the proposed site as wooded, with the monopole center about 60 feet inside the property to avoid a creek and wetlands, a 12-foot gravel access drive from North Frontage Road, and no lighting on the tower. He said the facility will support Verizon’s latest technologies and “will be 5G initially” and will “support all of Verizon’s technologies.”
Supervisors and commissioners pressed the applicant to show why capacity — not coverage — required a new freestanding structure, noting Verizon service is visible in town now and that county ordinance encourages maximizing existing support structures and joint use where feasible. The board asked for data demonstrating that (1) existing towers cannot be reconfigured or shared to meet the stated capacity needs and (2) the proposed tower’s design and location meet fall-radius, setback, and height rules in the R-1 zoning context. Nichols clarified that the parcel is zoned R-1 but currently vacant, and the ordinance language restricting towers on lots whose principal use is single-family residential applies differently where no residence exists now.
Board members also discussed procedural items: whether the county would require a third-party technical review (the ordinance allows the county to do so and to bill the applicant for the consultant cost, not to exceed 2.5 times the zoning application fee), how the planning commission will determine the need for that review, and that the applicant must provide the engineer’s technical narrative and other items listed in 14-13-10 before the planning commission hearing. The board noted that some submission items — such as a validated fall-radius plan and a balloon test — should be included in the application packet.
The recorded motion (mover/second not clearly identified on the record) was to forward the application to the Planning Commission once all 14-13-10 submission requirements had been provided to staff. The motion was seconded and approved by voice vote with no recorded opposition. No special-use permit decision was made at the workshop; the action was procedural to advance the application for full review.
Next steps: the applicant will return with a complete submission (engineer’s technical statement, balloon test schedule and visual simulations, fall-radius calculations and setbacks, and required public notices). The Planning Commission will then decide whether to accept Verizon’s technical materials or to require a third-party review, as allowed under the ordinance. No building or construction authorization was granted at this meeting.
Don't Miss a Word: See the Full Meeting!
Go beyond summaries. Unlock every video, transcript, and key insight with a Founder Membership.
✓
Get instant access to full meeting videos
✓
Search and clip any phrase from complete transcripts
✓
Receive AI-powered summaries & custom alerts
✓
Enjoy lifetime, unrestricted access to government data
30-day money-back guarantee
