Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Telecommunications topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission continues T‑Mobile lease expansion after residents raise road, notice and access concerns
Summary
Pennington County Planning Commission continued a T‑Mobile lease expansion for an existing Big Bend Road telecommunications site after residents and the commission raised questions about road damage from past deliveries, certified-mail notice timing and access easements; the applicant was not present and the commission set a July 28 continuance.
The Pennington County Planning Commission voted July 14 to continue consideration of a T‑Mobile application to expand leased space and add ground equipment at an existing telecommunications site on Big Bend Road after residents raised concerns and the applicant was not present.
The item, presented by Planner Megan Talmich, was an application from T‑Mobile (through UCI 2) to expand the leased area at 13100 Big Bend Road and add new ground‑level equipment cabinets and a small canopy. "The tower itself is not going to be affected other than adding the new equipment from T Mobile," Talmich said while explaining that the expansion triggered the permit review because the leased area would increase.
Residents who live adjacent to the site told the commission they were not satisfied with prior contractor traffic and road impacts from equipment deliveries, and they said certified notices arrived late or not at all. Bryson Schwartz, a Big Bend Road resident and president of the road district, said, "I did never received a certified letter regarding this hearing," and described ruts and yard damage when heavy equipment was previously brought to the site. Phil Nichols, a retired consulting engineer whose property faces the tower, asked for clearer plans or drawings and requested copies of the applicant’s submittals so neighbors could evaluate visual and construction impacts. Kelly Jensen, an adjoining property owner, said there is ongoing litigation over access across her parcel and introduced that as a separate concern.
Talmich said contractors and carrier representatives commonly attend these hearings, but neither the landowner nor a carrier representative appeared in person or by Zoom. Staff and commissioners expressed that applicant presence is customary and useful for answering contractor and construction questions; Commissioner Litton moved to continue the item until the applicant or a contractor representative can attend.
The commission approved the continuance to the July 28 meeting. Staff told residents to submit photos and documentary evidence to the planning desk so they could be added to the record.
Why it matters: neighbors said repeated heavy‑equipment deliveries previously damaged a local road that had been recently resurfaced, and some raised unresolved access and easement disputes; without the applicant present, the commission said it could not fully address those concerns.
Background and next steps: The parcel already hosts a disguised tower and cabinets leased by other carriers. Talmich said earlier building permits for the site had been issued but not completed, and the new request is limited to expanding the leased area and adding T‑Mobile cabinets and a canopy. The commission’s continuation means staff will ask the applicant and carrier representative to appear on July 28 so commissioners and neighbors can question them about hauling routes, contractor insurance/repair obligations, access agreements and exact equipment siting.
Resident submissions and county interdepartmental comments will be added to the project record for the next hearing. The commission’s recommendation will go to the Pennington County Board of Commissioners if a zoning or permit decision is required.
