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

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.