The Grayson County Board of Supervisors voted to approve a special-use permit to construct and operate a 229-foot wireless communications tower and ground-mounted equipment at 892 Old Park Road in White Top (tax map references given in meeting materials as 62‑A‑13 and 62‑A‑30). The board moved into a public hearing on the project before taking final action.

Planning staff told the board the project requires a special‑use permit because it exceeds the county’s 100‑foot threshold and must comply with Federal Aviation Administration lighting requirements. Staff said the permit application, listed in the packet as Special Use Permit 20250330, would improve cellular and radio reliability for roughly 440 residents in the area and recommended approval after evaluating public comments.

Thomas R. Revels, a White Top resident who identified himself as speaking as a citizen, told the board he had lived in White Top for 13 years and experienced long periods without cell or internet service. “I had no cell service. I couldn't reliably call fire and rescue services,” Revels said. “This project is gonna connect a part of this county that historically has been disconnected. It is absolutely critical for the people in our community.”

Planning materials included statements from residents and organizations both supporting and opposing the site. Materials summarized that Earl Greer spoke in favor of the project, citing local communications needs and emergency-service reliability, while Rodney Richardson, representing Mount Rogers Fire and Rescue and a local resident, preferred locating the tower on fire‑department property to improve access and to generate funding for the department. Irene Jasper, representing Friends of White Top, submitted a 50‑signature petition opposing the proposed Greer property site, citing visual and historic impacts and concerns about public notice.

Planning staff said the fire‑department site was evaluated and would provide about 6.5% less coverage, carry an estimated additional cost of $150,000, and could delay construction by up to a year because of federal permitting, and that funding for the alternative location would likely require county tax dollars. The planning commission considered those tradeoffs and recommended the permit proceed on the Greer property by a 7–0 vote.

After the public hearing the board entertained a motion to approve the permit. The chair ordered a roll‑call vote; the board recorded affirmative responses and the motion to approve was carried.

The board record and planning report noted the county must follow FAA lighting requirements for towers of this height and that construction timelines and alternative‑site cost estimates were part of the commission’s deliberations. No construction schedule or contractor name was provided in the public hearing remarks. The planning packet and the commission’s recommendation were noted as part of the board’s decision materials.