Frequently Asked Questions

Proposed Ferry Road Telecommunications Tower: Frequently Asked Questions

We have received a number of thoughtful questions from neighbors about the project, and we appreciate the time and care that went into them. To make the answers easier to follow, we have grouped similar questions together by topic and provided a single response for each group. Topics include RF exposure, property values, the need for the tower and site selection, visual impact, noise and lighting, future expansion, ownership, and County considerations.

Supporting materials referenced in these responses, including coverage maps, photo simulations, and the RF exposure analysis, are available on this website. The application will be reviewed through Stafford County’s standard process, including public hearings before the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. Hearing dates have not yet been scheduled and will be posted here once they are available. We will continue to update this page as the project moves forward.

1. RF Exposure, Health, and Ongoing Compliance

What will the maximum predicted RF exposure level be at the nearest residences, expressed both as an actual measurement and as a percentage of the FCC maximum permissible exposure limit?
Please provide the RF study showing predicted exposure levels at distances of 100, 250, 500, 750, and 1,000 feet from the proposed tower.
What is the predicted RF exposure specifically at the property lines and occupied portions of the closest homes, rather than simply at or near the base of the tower?
Does the RF analysis assume only the antennas and equipment proposed initially, or does it model the tower when fully built out with the maximum number of antennas and carriers it is structurally capable of supporting?
Will the RF analysis include the combined and cumulative emissions from all carriers, antennas, frequencies, and transmitting equipment that could eventually be located on the tower?
Will an independent RF measurement be performed after the tower becomes operational, and will those results be made publicly available?
If additional antennas, carriers, frequencies, or transmitting power are added in the future, will a new RF study be required?
Who will be responsible for periodically confirming that the facility continues to comply with FCC exposure limits, and how frequently will compliance be reviewed?

RESPONSE: An independent RF exposure analysis for the proposed tower was prepared by DBM Engineering and certified by a Virginia-licensed Professional Engineer. The full report is available here.

The analysis evaluated the combined emissions from all three proposed wireless carriers (Verizon Wireless, T-Mobile, and AT&T) operating together, rather than a single carrier alone. It found that cumulative RF exposure would be less than 2.42% of the FCC’s limit at all ground-level locations accessible to the public. This includes property lines, the properties of nearby homes, and any ground-level location at any distance from the tower. The analysis also examined the rooftops of nearby structures and found exposure would be less than 4.7% of the FCC limit, with levels inside homes expected to be lower still due to distance and building materials.

These results are intentionally conservative. The study assumed maximum equipment power and traffic, maximum antenna gain, and signal reflection from the ground, and it did not account for the reduction in signal caused by trees, buildings, and terrain, all of which means actual exposure levels are expected to be lower than those reported. The analysis also applied the FCC’s general population limits, which are the more protective of the FCC’s two exposure standards.

Under FCC rules, each wireless carrier is responsible for ensuring that its equipment complies with FCC exposure limits, including when equipment is added or modified in the future.

2. Property Values and Residential Impact

Has the applicant conducted a property-value impact analysis for homes surrounding the proposed tower?
If a property-value study has been performed, was it conducted by an independent Virginia-certified real estate appraiser or by a consultant hired by the applicant or tower company?
Please provide comparable-sales data showing the impact, if any, of a highly visible 150-foot telecommunications tower on residential properties located within 500, 1,000, and 1,500 feet.
Has any analysis been performed to determine whether homes with a direct line-of-sight view of a telecommunications tower sell for less or take longer to sell than comparable homes without such a view?
If the applicant maintains that the proposed tower will have no impact on surrounding property values, what local or regional sales data supports that conclusion?
Would the property owner or tower operator agree to a property-value protection agreement that would compensate adjoining homeowners if an independent appraisal demonstrates a measurable reduction in property value attributable to the tower?

RESPONSE: We understand that property values are an important concern.

As part of the application, Milestone is providing all information required under the Stafford County zoning ordinance for this type of facility, including site plans, setback information, visual simulations, and other required materials. The County’s review process is designed to evaluate a proposed tower’s compatibility with the surrounding area, and the application will be reviewed under those standards.

There is no reliable way to predict how a tower will affect the value of any specific home. Where studies have found an effect, it has generally been modest and limited to homes very close to a tower, while other studies have found no measurable effect. Reliable wireless coverage is also increasingly important to many homebuyers.

Milestone does not enter into property-value protection agreements.

3. Need for the Tower and Selection of This Location

What documented wireless coverage deficiency or capacity problem is this proposed tower intended to address? Please provide maps showing existing wireless coverage compared with projected coverage after construction of the proposed tower.

RESPONSE: The proposed tower is intended to address a documented gap in reliable wireless coverage in the Ferry Road area. Propagation maps prepared by DBM Engineering show existing Verizon Wireless coverage compared with projected coverage once the tower is built. Click here to view the prop maps.

The existing coverage map shows that much of the area around Ferry Road currently has only on-street coverage, meaning service can be unreliable inside homes and vehicles. The proposed coverage map shows that area improving to in-building coverage, allowing residents and businesses to make calls, use data, and reach 911 more reliably from inside their homes.

What measurable coverage or capacity improvement is achieved by constructing a 150-foot tower rather than a tower that is 100, 120, or 130 feet tall? Why is a 150-foot structure necessary at this particular location?

RESPONSE: The height is driven primarily by Stafford County’s zoning and carrier requirements. The County requires new towers to provide space and capacity for three wireless carriers plus the County’s own equipment, for a total of four antenna positions. A shorter tower would not be able to accommodate all four required positions and would provide less coverage.

What existing towers, commercial buildings, utility structures, government facilities, or other potential sites within the surrounding area were evaluated for co-location or alternative placement? Please provide the alternative-site analysis showing what other locations were considered and why each alternative was rejected. If this tower were being proposed today without the existing water-tower site already being available, would a location this close to established homes still be selected as the preferred site? If so, please explain why.

RESPONSE: The new tower will replace the existing water tower, which is being decommissioned, so the site will continue to have one tall structure rather than a new one being added elsewhere. Building at an existing wireless site, rather than introducing a tower at a new location, is generally the preferred approach because it concentrates facilities where they already exist and avoids adding a new wireless site elsewhere in the community.

Given that this facility is being introduced into an established residential area, what measurable benefit do surrounding residents receive from placing the tower at this particular location, and why does that benefit outweigh placing the tower farther from existing homes?

RESPONSE: Residents closest to the site are among those who would see the greatest improvement. As the coverage maps show, the area around Ferry Road would move from on-street coverage to reliable in-building coverage, improving everyday service and, importantly, access to emergency calling. The tower would also include space for County equipment, which can support public safety or County communications.

4. Visual Impact and Alternative Designs

Please provide realistic visual simulations showing what the proposed tower will look like from the closest residences, neighboring properties, and surrounding roads. Please include visual simulations showing conditions during the winter when leaves are off surrounding trees and vegetation provides less screening.

RESPONSE: Photo simulations showing the proposed tower from a variety of locations within approximately one-half mile of the site, including nearby residences and surrounding roads, are available on our “What Will It Look Like” page.

The simulations were prepared using photos taken in June 2026. Because most of the tower’s visible height extends above the surrounding tree canopy, the portion of the tower visible from most vantage points would be similar throughout the year. We recognize that leaf-off conditions may allow some additional views of the lower portion of the structure from certain locations.

Could a concealed, stealth, monopole, or otherwise less visually intrusive design be used to reduce the impact on neighboring residences?

RESPONSE: The proposed tower will replace the existing water tower, which is being decommissioned. The wireless carrier currently located on the water tower will move to the new tower, so the project replaces one tall structure at this site with another rather than adding a new one.

Concealment designs tend to be most effective when viewed from a distance. From nearby homes, they are often more noticeable, because they are bulkier than a standard monopole, particularly when designed to hold the four antenna positions the County requires. For these reasons, a monopole design was selected as the option that best balances visual impact for the closest neighbors with the County’s requirements.

What landscaping, screening, fencing, or other measures are proposed to reduce the visual impact of the tower and associated ground equipment?

RESPONSE: The ground equipment will be located within the existing compound, which is currently enclosed by a chain-link fence and surrounded by existing trees that help screen the equipment from view.

5. Noise, Backup Power, and Lighting

Will the site include a diesel, propane, natural-gas, or other backup generator?
What will the predicted noise level, measured in decibels, be at the nearest residential property line when the backup generator is operating?
How often will the backup generator be exercised or tested, on what days, and during what hours?
Will HVAC equipment, cooling fans, transformers, or other mechanical equipment operate continuously?
What is the predicted combined noise level from all tower-site equipment at the nearest neighboring residences during normal operation?
Will there be exterior or security lighting at the site?
If lighting is installed, will it operate continuously, be motion-activated, or only be used when technicians are present?
What measures will be used to prevent lighting from spilling onto neighboring residential properties?
Will FAA obstruction lighting be required either at the time of construction or if the tower is later modified, expanded, or increased in height?

RESPONSE: There is an existing T-Mobile backup generator at the site today, which will remain in place. The generator runs only during power outages and for routine maintenance testing, which typically occurs every four to six weeks for about 30 minutes during daytime hours. Because this generator is already in operation, neighbors can expect conditions similar to what they experience now. Wireless equipment at the site includes cooling fans and HVAC units that operate as needed to regulate equipment temperatures, and all equipment will comply with Stafford County’s noise ordinance.

No security or exterior lighting is proposed at the site. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has determined that obstruction lighting is not required for the tower as proposed. Any future increase in the tower’s height would be subject to FAA review and Stafford County approval.

6. Future Expansion and Maximum Buildout

How many carriers and antenna arrays is the proposed tower designed to accommodate?
What is the maximum number, size, and type of antennas, dishes, radios, cabinets, and other equipment that could ultimately be installed on or around the tower?
What would the site look like when it is fully built out to its maximum permitted capacity?
Could additional carriers, antennas, dishes, generators, equipment cabinets, or other infrastructure be added in the future without another public hearing or additional notification to surrounding residents?
Could the tower be increased in height in the future? If so, what approvals and public-notification requirements would apply?

RESPONSE: The proposed tower is designed to accommodate four antenna positions, providing space for three wireless carriers and Stafford County, as required by the County’s zoning ordinance. The specific antennas, radios, and ground equipment at each position are determined by each carrier based on its technology and service needs, so the exact equipment will vary over time. Any additional carrier or equipment installation would require review and approval by Stafford County, but under current County procedures, these installations do not require a public hearing or notification to neighboring residents. Any future increase in the tower’s height would be subject to County review, FAA review, and applicable federal regulations. Federal law allows limited modifications to existing towers through a streamlined local approval process; larger changes would require full County review.

7. Ownership, Future Operators, and Enforcement

If the property, tower, or telecommunications equipment is sold or transferred to another company in the future, will all conditions and restrictions placed on the original applicant remain legally binding on future owners and operators?
Who will be responsible for ensuring that future owners, carriers, and operators comply with all conditions imposed as part of the original approval?
If a future owner or carrier violates those conditions, what enforcement process will be available to neighboring residents and the locality?

RESPONSE: Conditions attached to the County’s approval of this tower apply to the site itself, not just to Milestone, so they remain in effect if the tower or property is ever sold or transferred to another company. As the tower owner, Milestone is responsible for ensuring that the site and the carriers located on it comply with all approval conditions, and any future owner would take on that same responsibility. Stafford County enforces zoning conditions through its standard code enforcement process.

8. County Benefit and Financial Considerations

What financial or other benefits will the County receive if this tower is approved at this location?
Will the County receive any lease payments, permitting fees, tax revenue, utility revenue, infrastructure improvements, service agreements, or other direct or indirect financial benefit associated with the tower?
If the County owns the property or has a financial interest in the site, please disclose the terms of any lease, revenue-sharing agreement, easement, or other compensation arrangement associated with the proposed tower.

RESPONSE: The proposed tower would be located on County-owned property under a lease agreement between Milestone and Stafford County. As a matter of practice, Milestone does not publicly share the financial terms of its site agreements. Because the County is a party to the agreement and a public body, questions about the lease terms and any revenue the County receives can be directed to the County, which is able to respond to them. Standard permitting and application fees apply to this project as they would to any similar application.

Does the County expect approval of this particular site to provide any financial, operational, or public-service benefit that would not be available if the tower were located elsewhere?
What factors make this specific site attractive to the County compared with alternative locations farther from established residential properties?
Please explain what weight, if any, financial considerations or anticipated County revenue have in the decision to approve this particular location.

RESPONSE: These questions relate to the County’s own goals and decision-making, so it would not be appropriate for Milestone to answer on the County’s behalf.

The application will go through the County’s standard review process, including Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors public hearings, where it will be evaluated under the County’s zoning requirements.