Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Pennington County approves three variances for contested cell tower after emergency‑services engineering review
Loading...
Summary
After neighbors raised aesthetic and property‑value objections, the board approved variance requests allowing a monopole telecommunications tower at 13599 Highway 40, citing a new engineering report on fall radius and letters from emergency services about coverage gaps.
The Pennington County Board of Commissioners on April 20 approved three variances that clear the way for a telecommunications monopole near Highway 40, overruling a December denial after additional engineering and emergency‑services input.
The board voted to grant a reduced minimum setback, a 1.1× height setback variance and a reduced setback to the nearest dwelling after planners presented an engineered fall‑radius letter and the county fire administrator submitted a letter saying first‑responder coverage in the area is inadequate.
Why it matters: County staff and the local fire administrator said the site would close an existing cell‑coverage gap and improve emergency communications in a portion of the Black Hills where radio and cellular service are spotty. Neighbors warned that the proposed structure would be highly visible from homes and could reduce property values and rural character.
The applicant’s representative, Doug Barker, argued the safety case during public testimony: “Eighty‑seven percent of all 911 calls in this country originate from wireless phones,” he told commissioners, adding the structure is intended to serve emergency and public‑safety needs as well as customers’ coverage. Attorney Greg Erlinson clarified technical details for the board, saying the proposed monopole height for this application is 125 feet.
Opponents described steep slopes, narrow private roads and close sightlines from front doors. One resident said the property owner had previously made roadway changes without permits and that the tower location would be visible "from my front porch." Another neighbor described long‑standing opposition and urged the board to uphold its earlier denial.
Commissioners said the new engineering evidence — the applicant’s structural letter that constrained a fall radius to roughly 60 feet under the stated test conditions — and the county fire administrator’s expressed public‑safety interest materially changed the record from the December decision. The board added conditions to approval, including a requirement that the tower be constructed as a "monopine" (a tree‑style monopole) where practicable to mitigate visual impacts and a condition that any increase in height would require the petitioner to return for further review.
The planning staff noted the telecommunications permit itself still requires a separate review; the approvals were for the variances only. The board recorded its votes in public session; commissioners did not record a roll‑call tally beyond an oral “aye” vote for the motions.
What’s next: The applicant must obtain the full telecommunications permit, comply with the conditions set by the board, and coordinate required access and approach permits with county highway staff. The planning office will monitor compliance and enforce permit conditions.
