Commission recommends approval of second 300-foot tower near Dakota; applicant says CloudOne will own site

Winona County’s Planning Commission voted to recommend that the County Board approve a conditional use permit for a 300‑foot guyed communications tower on a 12‑acre parcel owned by Beverly Dulac (Dulac parcel) near County Road 101, just outside the city of Dakota. The commission’s recommendation to the county board carried with no recorded opposition during the public hearing.

Planning staff again presented the application and supporting materials, saying the proposal is substantially similar to another telecommunications application considered earlier in the same meeting: a 300‑foot guyed tower with a roughly 100‑by‑100‑foot leased compound, a 50‑by‑50‑foot initial fenced equipment pad, three guy anchors, and engineered collapse protection such that a worst‑case failure would reportedly collapse within approximately 120 feet of the base, per the engineer letter. Eric (planning staff) noted the Dulac parcel is about 12 acres and that the petitioners met with New Hartford Township on June 12; the township submitted a form indicating it had no comments.

Applicant and ownership: the applicant’s consultant, Sean Hempstead of GSS Inc., and representatives said CloudOne Services will own the tower. "This will actually be the first CloudOne tower in Winona County," Hempstead said. He also said CloudOne and affiliated operations aim to co‑locate carriers where possible and that the company intends to deploy AT&T service first and to pursue additional sites across the county.

Environmental and technical notes: staff reported the county’s archaeological‑probability mapping showed a higher probability area on the other side of the county road but that the tower footprint is outside that high‑probability band; the applicant supplied a Phase I cultural resources survey that found no material cultural resources. Staff said they used a noticing radius larger than the ordinance minimum and also notified the city of Dakota because the site sits close to the city boundary.

Public comment: no members of the public spoke in opposition at the hearing; staff and the applicant answered commissioner questions about tower spacing relative to existing shorter towers visible from I‑90, ownership structures, and whether the applicant would provide a map showing other planned or proposed sites. The applicant said some lease locations remain tentative until agreements are finalized.

Outcome: a commissioner moved to recommend approval with staff‑prepared findings and conditions; the commission voted to recommend approval and placed the item on the county commissioners’ Sept. 9 agenda for final action.