Board tables decision on proposed 195‑foot Verizon monopole in Callio after neighbors object; schedules site visit
March 13, 2026 | Northumberland 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 »
The Northumberland County Board of Supervisors on March 12 held a public hearing on a conditional-use permit application from Vertical Bridge and Verizon Wireless to construct a 195-foot self-support monopole (plus a 4-foot lightning rod) on a 4.355-acre parcel in Callio owned by Anthony Mangano.
Lisa Murphy, counsel for the applicants, and their technical representative described the network need, said existing nearby sites were already in use by Verizon, and explained carriers sometimes must build new monopoles where tall structures are not available. Applicants provided photographic simulations and described a 50-by-50-foot fenced compound around the base, cabinets with neutral colors, and a structural design they said would include engineered weak points so the tower would collapse inward within the lease compound in a failure scenario. The applicants also offered the county rent-free space below the 150-foot level for emergency communications.
Board members asked technical questions about foundation/geotechnical design, frequency of lightning strikes and grounding, generator noise and cycling, and whether the proposed height would address known low-lying reception problems (the transcript referenced a local low-elevation reception issue sometimes called the "Suffolk scarf"). Applicants committed to provide structural and geotechnical engineering drawings and RF-safety documentation showing emissions fall well below federal limits.
During public comment, Jamika Campbell (a nearby resident) said the monopole would sit in the middle of a compound with several homes, that a failure could threaten multiple residences, and that she feared electrocution risk from lightning grounding into wet ground. The applicant and engineering representatives responded to technical questions but did not remove neighbors’ concerns.
Rather than approve or deny the permit, the board voted to table the application and requested a site visit with applicants and nearby residents present, and asked applicants to provide the structural designs, geotechnical reports and RF-safety documentation before the next board meeting. The applicants signaled willingness to consider shifting the compound location on the parcel if feasible.
Why this matters: The proposal affects county zoning, public-safety communications capacity and neighborhood safety perceptions. The board balanced network coverage goals against residents’ proximity and safety concerns and elected to investigate further before taking a formal action.
What’s next: Staff will coordinate a site visit and the applicants will provide the requested engineering and RF documentation prior to the board’s next meeting, when members will take up the application again.
Lisa Murphy, counsel for the applicants, and their technical representative described the network need, said existing nearby sites were already in use by Verizon, and explained carriers sometimes must build new monopoles where tall structures are not available. Applicants provided photographic simulations and described a 50-by-50-foot fenced compound around the base, cabinets with neutral colors, and a structural design they said would include engineered weak points so the tower would collapse inward within the lease compound in a failure scenario. The applicants also offered the county rent-free space below the 150-foot level for emergency communications.
Board members asked technical questions about foundation/geotechnical design, frequency of lightning strikes and grounding, generator noise and cycling, and whether the proposed height would address known low-lying reception problems (the transcript referenced a local low-elevation reception issue sometimes called the "Suffolk scarf"). Applicants committed to provide structural and geotechnical engineering drawings and RF-safety documentation showing emissions fall well below federal limits.
During public comment, Jamika Campbell (a nearby resident) said the monopole would sit in the middle of a compound with several homes, that a failure could threaten multiple residences, and that she feared electrocution risk from lightning grounding into wet ground. The applicant and engineering representatives responded to technical questions but did not remove neighbors’ concerns.
Rather than approve or deny the permit, the board voted to table the application and requested a site visit with applicants and nearby residents present, and asked applicants to provide the structural designs, geotechnical reports and RF-safety documentation before the next board meeting. The applicants signaled willingness to consider shifting the compound location on the parcel if feasible.
Why this matters: The proposal affects county zoning, public-safety communications capacity and neighborhood safety perceptions. The board balanced network coverage goals against residents’ proximity and safety concerns and elected to investigate further before taking a formal action.
What’s next: Staff will coordinate a site visit and the applicants will provide the requested engineering and RF documentation prior to the board’s next meeting, when members will take up the application again.
View the Full Meeting & All Its Details
This article offers just a summary. Unlock complete video, transcripts, and insights as a Founder Member.
✓
Watch full, unedited meeting videos
✓
Search every word spoken in unlimited transcripts
✓
AI summaries & real-time alerts (all government levels)
✓
Permanent access to expanding government content
30-day money-back guarantee
