Planning commission recommends approval for two 300-foot cell towers after debate with SBA Communications

The Houston County Planning Commission on Sept. 24 recommended approval of two conditional-use permits for 300-foot telecommunications towers proposed by CloudOne Services, following competing comments from SBA Communications and questions from commissioners and members of the public.

The permits — one for land near State Highway 44 in Mayville Township (Parcel 090070001) and one in Wilmington Township (Parcel 15015555) — were recommended to the county board with two conditions. Both applications were advertised with public hearings set for Sept. 24; written comments were required by Sept. 16, 2025.

CloudOne’s project manager, Mike Huizinga of GSS, told the commission, “what we're proposing is a new tower at 300 feet tall,” and described the company’s plan as part of a multi-site program to fill coverage gaps in rural southeastern Minnesota. Huizinga said the proposed tower sites sit at about 10 feet higher ground elevation than an existing nearby SBA tower that is 200 feet tall and houses two carriers; he estimated the CloudOne equipment centerline would be about 295 feet above ground.

SBA Communications, represented in public comment by attorney Jeff Dominguez of Burns and Hanson, urged caution and asked the commission to require coverage maps comparing the proposals. Dominguez said SBA’s position is that “SBA's existing tower is fully sufficient to meet the cell phone coverage needs in the region,” and that, in his view, the commission should review coverage maps before acting. He also outlined a timeline his client gave for rebuilding an existing SBA tower — three days to construct plus 90–120 days for permits and federal approvals — and said SBA would be able to accommodate additional carriers if necessary.

CloudOne and its counsel disputed SBA’s contention that co‑locating on the existing tower would achieve comparable coverage. Huizinga said a structural modification of the existing tower sufficient to match CloudOne’s proposed height would amount to a rebuild, not a simple upgrade, and raised practical concerns about construction time, coverage disruption and responsibility for costs.

Commission discussion touched on competing priorities: improving rural coverage and whether two towers in close proximity are warranted. One commissioner compared the situation to retail competition, saying allowing another tower could create competition for carriers; another commissioner said the commission had coverage material submitted by SBA and that, after review, some members were satisfied with the applicant's explanations.

For each application the commission ran through the county’s conditional-use findings (land use plan consistency, water quality, runoff, soils/geotech, pollution hazards, access/utilities, parking and visual impacts) and approved the findings by voice vote. Each tower application was then recommended for approval to the county board; recorded roll-call votes listed Wayne Feldmeier, Larry Gosted, Jonathan (John) Glasspool, Josh Grama, Franklin Hahn and Eric Johnson voting in favor, with Commissioner Chase Munson absent. The Mayville Township item was noted to be presented to the county board on Oct. 7 with a 9 a.m. start time; the Wilmington Township item proceeded similarly.

Speakers from the public asked how leases and lease rates work; the commission heard figures in public comment that the market average for co‑location can be about $6,000 per month and that new‑tower ground rent might be about $400 per month, figures presented by CloudOne’s representative as context for why carriers might prefer new towers in some cases. The commission also discussed decommissioning language and whether to require a removal or bond plan; applicants said their private lease typically contains abandonment/removal language and sometimes a security mechanism but the county does not necessarily receive full commercial lease terms.

The commission placed procedural conditions and will forward the recommendations and findings to the Board of Commissioners for final action. The commission's record includes public comments from both the applicant and SBA Communications and internal staff materials noting FAA, FCC, state historic preservation and NEPA steps that remain for applicants prior to construction.

Looking ahead, both applicants remain subject to federal approvals (FAA determination of no hazard, FCC) and county permitting steps — the commission’s recommendation does not itself authorize construction. The commission emphasized that final tower heights could be limited by FAA determinations, which would affect final design and coverage outcomes.

The commission’s discussion and the two recommended approvals conclude a multi‑meeting review that included a previous continuance to allow responses to SBA’s objection. The two items will appear before the county board for final determination.