Our Planning Board Said No. Please Uphold That Decision.
We are residents of Woodlands Crossing, Cornerstone Ridge, and surrounding residential communities in Bentonville, Arkansas, united in asking the Benton County Planning Board of Appeals to uphold the Planning Board's denial of the proposed 150-foot telecommunications tower at 8153 S Morning Star Road.

On July 15, 2026, the Benton County Planning Board denied the proposed tower under Case No. 26-246.

The applicant has now appealed that decision under Case No. 26-358 to the Benton County Planning Board of Appeals.

We are asking the Appeals Board to uphold the original denial.
We are not opposed to wireless service or responsible telecommunications infrastructure. We recognize the importance of reliable cellular coverage.

Our concern is the location.

A 150-foot telecommunications tower and associated equipment compound are being proposed in an established residential setting, surrounded by communities including Woodlands Crossing and Cornerstone Ridge.

The County's own technical review identifies the property as Low-Density Residential, with High-Density Residential to the east and west and Low-Density Residential to the north and south.

The Planning Board considered the proposal and denied it based on land-use incompatibility.

We respectfully ask the Board of Appeals to uphold that decision and require the applicant to pursue a more appropriate location.

 
1. This is a residential compatibility issue
This is not an isolated tower in an industrial or remote setting.

The County's own report identifies the property as residential and documents residential land uses surrounding the site.

A 150-foot telecommunications structure, along with its compound and supporting infrastructure, would create a significant and permanent change to the character and visual environment of the surrounding residential area.

The question before the Appeals Board should therefore be:

Is this particular location appropriate for this particular facility?

 
2. The tower is extremely close to an existing residence
The County's technical review identifies a requirement that telecommunications towers have no occupiable residence within 200 feet — the proposed 150-foot tower height plus 50 feet.

The same County review identifies approximately 274 feet to the neighboring residence, but only approximately 106 feet from the existing occupiable residence on the subject property, based on aerial imagery. The later Public Hearing Report identifies that distance as approximately 115 feet.

We are not asking the Appeals Board to make an unsupported legal conclusion about how this requirement applies to the host property's residence.

We are asking the Board to recognize this as an important site-specific safety and land-use consideration and to require clarification before overturning the original denial.

 
3. The applicant's own plans anticipate future carriers
This proposal should not be viewed simply as a single-carrier installation.

The site plan identifies:

Future AT&T 15' × 25' Lease Area
Future Carrier 14' × 20' Lease Area
This indicates that the site is designed to accommodate additional carriers beyond the initial installation.

The Appeals Board should therefore consider the foreseeable long-term buildout of this facility, not simply what may be installed on Day One.

The potential future expansion of antennas, equipment and supporting infrastructure makes the location decision even more significant for the surrounding residential community.

 
4. Has this particular location been proven necessary?
We are not asking Benton County to prohibit wireless service.

We are asking a different and very reasonable question:

Why does this particular residential location have to be used?
Before placing a 150-foot tower next to established residential communities, the applicant should demonstrate that reasonable alternatives have been adequately evaluated, including:

Existing towers that could potentially accommodate additional equipment
Co-location opportunities
Alternative properties
Other locations on the subject property that could provide greater separation from residences
The County's telecommunications review specifically addresses co-location, requiring applicants to cooperate in co-location where feasible.

Wireless service can be necessary without this particular site being necessary.

 
5. The County's technical review identified unresolved concerns
The County's own Public Hearing Report identified several issues requiring attention, including:

Fire Marshal comments were not available at the time of the report.
The property is located within an MS4 area and requires a stormwater permit.
The applicant stated that no chemical storage would occur on-site, while the site plan showed a generator with a 210-gallon diesel fuel capacity.
Site-plan revisions were required concerning signage.
These issues do not necessarily establish that the project can never be approved.

However, they reinforce why the Appeals Board should be cautious about overturning the original denial before the record is fully resolved.

 
6. The applicant's property-value study is not specific to our neighborhood
The applicant submitted a valuation study involving telecommunications towers at other locations, including a study concerning a different tower site at 15984 Railroad Cut Road in Rogers. The report analyzes tower sites and surrounding properties in different settings, including properties where towers were separated from homes by approximately 250–271 feet.

Those circumstances are materially different from the proposal before the Board:

A different location
Different surrounding development
Different tower characteristics
Different distances from residences
Different neighborhood context
We are not claiming that the applicant's study is invalid.

We are asking the Board to recognize that evidence from other tower sites cannot substitute for a site-specific assessment of the potential impact of this proposed tower on this particular residential community.

7. Multiple Nearby Communities Are Concerned
This proposal affects more than a single homeowner. Residents from Woodlands Crossing, Cornerstone Ridge, and other nearby residential communities have expressed serious concerns about the proposed location.

Residents have organized petitions and raised concerns regarding:

Residential compatibility
Proximity to homes
Visual impact of a 150-foot structure
Potential future multi-carrier expansion
Property values and marketability
Noise and ongoing equipment activity
Whether alternative locations have been adequately evaluated

Our communities are asking for responsible infrastructure planning and a location that is more compatible with surrounding residential development.

 
What We Are Asking
We respectfully ask the Benton County Planning Board of Appeals to uphold the Benton County Planning Board's July 15, 2026 denial of Case No. 26-246.

If telecommunications infrastructure is genuinely needed in this area, we ask the applicant to pursue a more appropriate location farther from established residential neighborhoods and demonstrate that reasonable alternatives and co-location opportunities have been fully evaluated.

We are not against technology.
We are not against better cellular service.
We are asking for responsible infrastructure planning and a location that respects existing homeowners and residential communities.
The Planning Board has already considered this proposal and made its decision.

We respectfully ask the Board of Appeals to uphold that decision.

Please sign this petition and share it with your neighbors.

Our homes cannot be relocated. The tower can.