[{"_1":2,"_98":-5,"_99":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6152784,"mediaKeyId","5495440-1929a5b77116b86253425e5656500d2b","parentId",5495440,"title","Commission endorses two ordinance amendments and discusses solar/wind rules, moratoriums and litigation risks","audioSeconds",1226,"startMs",3105000,"endMs",4331000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5495440-1929a5b77116b86253425e5656500d2b&start=3105&end=4331","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5495440-1929a5b77116b86253425e5656500d2b/thumbnail_3105000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6152784/Pennington-County/South-Dakota/Commission-endorses-two-ordinance-amendments-and-discusses-solarwind-rules-moratoriums-and-litigation-risks","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6152784-828073d2a83ba6cea7ab04f7569b6e9b/orig.mp4?Expires=1771200624&Signature=UwNqRXvvnao4cejdsbsRiqhdP4-w0UeU4WNgg0vjPrBUklIdBpgg9Qg89m9Y3dlZlMOf-bDb8e~vV-Lle3O7E99NAQ07KZwURqa3mjXyVMEmjBFJiS2qu4R25NvApfTsIBv0YTQaJUrPMK3gYlclI1rgHZeXZwwpVTjtodCx3tHdu59URdAa-P6EgeCsLF7Aw~Ie53~gJ5-vZ5URkVojMa1rbwMLRMLX8bWZh1fbW5lkjqfrzEJGoUccGYmKAFyaDT7gtR3c4qWVlHcNfbVqVRhdROfxZUp2Ip~HQZvmPyTY7umoszyPoGKf6AeMVfgj5xy7ME6ws29TxArhyCb-gw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Pennington County, SD","date","2025-07-28T18:52:37Z","article","The Pennington County Planning Commission on July 28 voted to recommend two ordinance amendments to the Board of Commissioners and held an extended discussion about ongoing work by an alternative energy committee to update county rules for solar and wind projects and to avoid litigation risks.

The commission accepted ordinance amendment OA25‑0002 (telecommunications/conditional use language as presented by staff) and OA25‑0003, an amendment to Pennington County code Section 5.11 establishing a $1,000 conditional use permit fee for data processing centers. Commission action on OA25‑0003 added the fee—“data processing center, $1,000”—to the code.

Britney Molitor, planning director, presented the amendments and noted the data processing center fee is intended to align with other permit fees for alternative energy and telecommunications. Commissioner discussion covered technical points in the proposed telecom language such as fencing, buffers and noise limits. Planning staff said the draft ordinance defines the types of actions the planning commission may recommend and clarified buffer and buffering setbacks versus normal setback rules.

Commissioners asked how the noise standard would work in practice; staff explained ambient sound is measured before operation and an added limit (a 55 dB(A) standard above ambient in the draft) would be applied, with a 30‑minute window allowed for short, mitigable exceedances. The draft also requires security fencing and vegetative buffers around equipment pads; staff said fencing is a common industry practice for security though many sites are observed with gates left open in the field.

On alternative energy, commissioners and staff said a multi‑agency committee has met repeatedly and conducted site visits, including to a large solar site in another county. Commissioners discussed local landowner interest, neighboring landowner opposition and the need to craft setbacks and permit language that can withstand legal challenge; staff mentioned an ongoing federal lawsuit involving permitting changes in Kingsbury County, Nebraska. Commission members said they do not support wind or solar in certain agricultural districts in eastern Pennington County and are exploring alternatives such as limiting projects to industrially zoned lands or tightening setbacks.

Commissioners discussed the county’s moratorium and timing: staff reported that federal tax‑credit rules and timelines can create financial pressure to show a project’s initiation and that some external projects may be seeking to qualify for credits by mid‑2026; staff said the county may extend its moratorium while the ordinance is finalized.

A motion to recommend OA25‑0002 as drafted was moved and seconded; that motion carried. A separate motion to add the new fee (OA25‑0003) and set the data processing center CUP fee at $1,000 was moved and seconded and carried. Both recommendations will be forwarded to the Pennington County Board of Commissioners. Staff said the planning commission’s detailed draft defines actions the commission may recommend on telecommunications and provides clarity about conditional use procedures.

Commissioners asked staff to provide training and deployment support for a new agenda/documents software the county is rolling out to make packet materials and comments easier to access on dais devices.

The commission’s discussion on alternative energy focused on balancing landowner interest, neighbor impacts and the county’s legal vulnerability; staff and the county attorney were asked to continue research and draft ordinance language that reduces the county’s risk of successful legal challenges.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","7-28-2025 Pennington County Planning Commission Meeting","oneSentenceSummary","On July 28 the Pennington County Planning Commission recommended two ordinance amendments to the board — adopting proposed telecommunications conditional‑use language and adding a $1,000 data‑processing‑center conditional‑use permit fee — and spent substantial time discussing changes to county rules for solar and wind projects.","taxTitle","Pennington County, South Dakota","taxId",2745,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6152788,"Planning commission approves Logport subdivision preliminary plan, adds condition requiring well‑lot variance",312,481000,793000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5495440-1929a5b77116b86253425e5656500d2b&start=481&end=793","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5495440-1929a5b77116b86253425e5656500d2b/thumbnail_481000.jpg","/articles/6152788/Pennington-County/South-Dakota/Planning-commission-approves-Logport-subdivision-preliminary-plan-adds-condition-requiring-welllot-variance","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6152788-4935da3c478e7f2370a4462c292a83ab/orig.mp4?Expires=1771200624&Signature=l7p-uAtGoA8JoB3kj9nPekuOVt9q5k7oGGc5m4CdHyDnGRtJrz4nRMcnbR2QVJZFk3gzia8FhJ-o2IVlfvk5EiMGdloNJIliDJLYxdo2LVc5vsINY43yX7nuSqgH88wpBZqto6Fxj-6GYrTGCP~RbIg1ht8ls-ZT3mzLtcFomTMD0iGGfndRudjU8jlyCInADpwt1r6Qv9uoaKWO-i1wAcvgT36zzar7bOcLyk3k5hz7BEMmy9Ifxd0RX6ahxcxqr4LfOQuBAeOOlnCTwsTQ1J9A2JSvELveEggYRm-MIuq56uX8v9AF0KThU5pnpeqd9Q5BZjrMo8R7KqVVUpq7xw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Pennington County Planning Commission on July 28 recommended approval of a preliminary plan (COPPL25‑0007) to subdivide 13186 Morris Place into Lot 1A‑1 (about 1.144 acres), Lot 1A‑2 (about 0.7 acres) and a well lot, subject to conditions including a required lot‑size variance for the well lot before the plat is filed.

The request matters because the proposed well lot is substantially smaller than the county’s standard lot size and the applicant needs a variance from the Board of Commissioners; the commission added that variance approval as a condition of its recommendation.

Cody Sachs, senior planner, presented the project and said the property is zoned suburban residential, has no special flood hazard, and is accessed off Morris Place. Sachs told commissioners the highway department had noted the approach failed inspection and required the applicant to extend a culvert to a minimum 30‑foot length with a 20‑foot width for reinspection, or alternatively bring the road into the Morris Place Road District standards if the road is incorporated into the district.

Sachs described Lot 1A‑1 as 1.144 acres, Lot 1A‑2 as approximately 0.7 acres and said the well lot is about 0.009 acres; he recommended approval of the preliminary plan with conditions. Commissioners discussed whether the lot‑size variance needed to be written as a condition; staff agreed that adding a condition requiring the applicant to obtain the variance prior to recording the plat was appropriate.

A motion to approve the preliminary plan with an added eighth condition addressing the well‑lot variance was moved and seconded; the motion carried. The commission’s recommendation will be forwarded to the Pennington County Board of Commissioners for final action. Pending items noted by staff include compliance with either the Morris Place Road District standards (if the road is brought into the district) or the highway department’s approach permit and Ordinance 14 standards if the road remains outside the district, and a special permitted use for accessory structures on Lot 1A‑2 until a residence is constructed.

By placing the variance as a condition, the commission made clear that final plat recordation is contingent on the Board of Commissioners granting the needed lot size variance for the well lot.","The commission voted July 28 to recommend approval of a preliminary plat that would create three lots in the Logport subdivision, adding a condition that the applicant secure a variance for an undersized well lot before recording the plat.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":44,"_47":92,"_49":93,"_51":94,"_53":95,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":96,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":97,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6152793,"Planning commission approves T‑Mobile expansion at Big Bend Road tower, requires road‑haul agreement",2310,795000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5495440-1929a5b77116b86253425e5656500d2b&start=795&end=3105","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5495440-1929a5b77116b86253425e5656500d2b/thumbnail_795000.jpg","/articles/6152793/Pennington-County/South-Dakota/Planning-commission-approves-TMobile-expansion-at-Big-Bend-Road-tower-requires-roadhaul-agreement","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6152793-60ae2c0b015ed820d9c6cc67262cdba4/orig.mp4?Expires=1771200624&Signature=BXHHoxclp990tap3xLZT5I18SH7-~TrqmmdIdtVndAdMStWiu5QK8Mn5~Ia1v5MYwgrMQ3g40aF5BNK1vOBIBvBXC-ri81r7wwyeL~sFt0YA5cNKbSK6rl4Tk956WZ2Dl4wobDmFxLDmhzfJtDX9JHxcm-iz~rrO9CH-fVxVzFxKQjCJ4HXiGNLjp-TDpLxzCG6VvPGdYpMs10Lx-ZCng4w8LqFLZN0l4M-WtyBmZo4jgJEdCuEBjTr8Erg9EzEnX02c9BdWpoUlfHFP6bKMl30QIcCuy-N8csvsThHuFdWCHNk6E9RUUSuedc60JAjhIn4~ED58yaFtx9AKvuy1Qg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Pennington County Planning Commission on July 28 approved a telecommunications facility permit to expand the leased area of an existing tower at 13100 Big Bend Road and add T‑Mobile antennas, while adding a requirement that the applicant and the Big Bend Road District meet to determine whether a road‑haul agreement for damage and repairs is needed before a building permit is filed.

The item matters because residents who live near the tower raised concerns about heavy equipment traffic, access across private property and electromagnetic emissions, and commissioners added a condition intended to protect township roads used to access the site.

Megan Talmadge, planner, introduced the item as “to expand the leased area of an existing telecommunications tower and equipment shelter” and said the application included a visualization of the extended fenced area. The permit request would enlarge the fenced lease area and place T‑Mobile equipment on a raised steel platform inside the fence rather than inside a large enclosed shelter.

Property owner Mark Frederick, who leases ground to the tower owner, told the commission heavy equipment deliveries previously caused damage and that his lease with the new tower owner requires that \"any heavy equipment will be offloaded at the intersection of 44 and Big Bend Road and then driven up\" rather than driven up on semi‑trailers. Frederick also described the additional lease area as “just about an area I believe it is 25 feet by 17 feet.”

Representatives for T‑Mobile, appearing by Zoom, said the company will install six antennas on the existing structure and place cabinets on a steel platform within the expanded fenced area. Kenneth Trujillo, a site acquisition specialist with UCI2 representing T‑Mobile, said, “T Mobile's emissions will be no different than what's up there right now,” and that the company is licensed to operate on assigned radio frequencies and will operate within FCC guidelines.

Resident Neil Countryman asked about frequency bands and power. A T‑Mobile representative listed planned bands as \"600, 700, 1,900, and 2,100\" megahertz and—when asked about a power figure—stated the \"total average ERRP, is gonna be 79 d d m.\" The transcripted technical remark has been preserved exactly as spoken.

Neighbors also raised concerns about access across private property. Kelly Jensen, whose home is adjacent to the tower, said there had never been a commercial access agreement for maintenance vehicles across her property and told the commission: “There is an issue about access across my property.” The applicant and tower owner agreed to follow up and T‑Mobile agreed to provide contact information for follow‑up discussions.

Commissioners added a ninth condition to staff's recommended conditions requiring that the applicant meet with the road district to determine if a road‑haul agreement for damage and repairs is necessary, and that the meeting occur before a building permit is applied for. State's Attorney Tyler Sobzak advised the commission that a road‑haul agreement would be a private agreement between the road district and the applicant and that the commission cannot force a separate governmental entity to enter a contract; the condition therefore directs the parties to meet and decide whether an agreement is appropriate.

Commissioner Cherry moved the permit's approval with the added condition; the motion was seconded and carried. The planning commission's recommendation will go to the Pennington County Board of Commissioners, which will make the final decision at its next regular meeting.

Details that commissioners and speakers emphasized include: the applicant's commitment to offload heavy equipment at the intersection of Highway 44 and Big Bend Road rather than bring semis up the hill, T‑Mobile's plan to place equipment on a raised steel platform inside expanded fencing, resident concerns about electromagnetic exposure and reflections from local cliffs, and an outstanding access/easement question on adjacent private property that the applicant agreed to pursue with the neighbor.

The permit approval was a recommendation to the county commissioners; final permitting, any required road‑haul agreement and building permits remain subject to subsequent administrative and private agreements.","On July 28, 2025 the Pennington County Planning Commission approved a permit to expand leased ground space and add T‑Mobile antennas at a telecommunications tower on Big Bend Road, adding a condition that the applicant meet with the local road district about a road‑haul agreement before applying for a building permit.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Commission endorses two ordinance amendments and discusses solar/wind rules, moratoriums and litigation risks

Planning commission approves Logport subdivision preliminary plan, adds condition requiring well‑lot variance

Planning commission approves T‑Mobile expansion at Big Bend Road tower, requires road‑haul agreement