Pennington County planning commission continues T‑Mobile lease expansion after residents raise road‑damage and notice concerns

The Pennington County Planning Commission on July 14 voted to continue review of a T‑Mobile request to expand the leased area at an existing telecommunications facility at 13100 Big Bend Road until the commission’s July 28 meeting so the applicant can attend and answer residents’ questions. Megan Talmich, planner for Pennington County, said the request would expand the leased ground area and add new equipment and a shelter; she described the tower itself as unchanged except for standard equipment upgrades. Why it matters: Neighbors said previous deliveries to the site damaged Big Bend Road and private yards, and they asked for a commitment that any future construction would coordinate with the Big Bend Road District and address property‑damage responsibility. Those concerns are operational and relate to access and public‑works impacts rather than zoning substance, and residents urged the county to require on‑site coordination before work begins. Megan Talmich, the county planner, described the project as an expansion of the leased area on an existing tower, saying “the tower itself is not going to be affected other than adding the new equipment from T Mobile,” and that equipment shelters are a standard building‑permit matter. Several neighbors contested that description in practice, saying heavy trucks that delivered previous equipment drove off the gravel road, were pulled by wreckers, and caused ruts and yard damage. “They ended up driving off the road and had to be pulled up the hill with a wrecker, which caused significant damage to the road and to my yard personally,” said Bryson Schwartz, who identified himself as president of the Big Bend Road District and a resident at 13137 Big Bend Road. Retired consulting engineer Phil Nichols said he wanted detailed plans before allowing another pre‑fabricated equipment structure to be brought in, and requested copies of UCI’s construction documentation. Kelly Jensen, whose property adjoins the leased area, told the commission there is ongoing litigation over access and an access agreement for existing utility crossings. Commission action and next steps: Commissioners moved and seconded a continuance to the July 28 planning commission meeting; the motion carried. Commissioners and staff asked that the applicant (property owner Mark and Christine Frederick and T‑Mobile/UCI representatives) attend the July 28 meeting, either in person or by Zoom, to answer questions about construction plans, contractor responsibilities, and traffic/road impacts. County staff advised neighbors to submit photos and documentation of past damage for the record. What remained unresolved: Residents asked that the county require the applicant to coordinate directly with the Big Bend Road District and to document responsibility for any road or yard repair. Planning staff said they could require proof of contact and coordination with the road district, but were uncertain about the extent of authority to require repair of damage off the leased property. No final binding mitigation or repair commitments were recorded at the July 14 hearing because the applicant was not present. The board of commissioners — which acts as the county’s board of adjustment for variances — may review related permit or access issues as needed. Context and background: The permit is logged as Telecommunications Facility Permit COTCP25‑0001 and the tower is the existing site used by multiple carriers. Residents, planning staff and commissioners all discussed the difference between telecommunications permits (TC) and building permits for equipment shelters; planners said some shelter work would require separate building permits. At the July 14 hearing, T‑Mobile and UCI representatives were not present and several speakers asked that the contractor be required to appear at the July 28 meeting so the commission and neighbors could review construction plans and hauling methods. Ending note: The commission continued the item to allow the applicant to appear and to give staff and neighbors time to document prior road damage and to ask the road district to participate in a coordination plan.