[0:12] Good morning.

[0:14] Welcome to pending county planning

[0:16] commission meeting of February 23rd,

[0:19] 2026.

[0:21] The recommendations of the planning

[0:22] commission on certain items from this

[0:24] agenda will be considered by the board

[0:26] of commissioners at their regular

[0:28] meeting on March 3rd, 2026 at 9:30 a.m.

[0:32] The planning commission utilizes speaker

[0:35] request forms which are available in the

[0:37] back of the commission chambers during

[0:40] the meeting.

[0:41] Roll call.

[0:43] Everyone's here and Lori's on Zoom. Can

[0:46] you hear us, Lori?

[0:48] » Yes.

[0:49] » Thank you.

[0:51] First order of business or second order

[0:53] business is approval of the February

[0:55] 9th, 2026 meetings that are the Pending

[0:58] County Planning Commission. Have you all

[1:00] had a chance to review those minutes in

[1:02] your agenda packet?

[1:05] » I make a motion to approve uh today's

[1:08] uh agenda or minute, excuse me, of the

[1:10] February 9th, 2026 minutes. Second.

[1:13] moved and seconded to approve the

[1:15] February 9th, 2026 minutes of the

[1:19] Pennington County Planning Commission.

[1:21] Discussion

[1:23] hearing none. All in favor of the motion

[1:25] signify by saying I.

[1:26] » I.

[1:27] » I.

[1:28] » Opposed? Motion carried.

[1:32] Agenda is the same. Have you had a

[1:35] chance to review it in your packets? If

[1:37] so, uh, chair would address a motion.

[1:43] » I'll make a motion to

[1:44] » Second.

[1:46] » Moved and seconded to approve the uh,

[1:49] agenda as published uh, for the

[1:51] Pennington County Planning Commission

[1:53] February 23rd, 2026 meeting.

[1:57] Discussion

[2:00] hearing none. All in favor of the motion

[2:02] signify by saying I. I.

[2:04] » I. opposed.

[2:07] Motion carried. On to the consent

[2:09] agenda. Good morning, Britney.

[2:11] » Good morning, commissioners. Britney

[2:12] Han, planning director. The following

[2:14] items have been placed on the consent

[2:16] agenda for action to be taken on all

[2:17] items in accordance with staff's

[2:19] recommendation by a single vote. Any

[2:21] item may be removed from the consent

[2:23] agenda by any planning commissioner,

[2:25] staff member, or audience member for

[2:27] separate consideration. The findings of

[2:29] this planning commission and certain

[2:31] items from this agenda are

[2:32] recommendations to the Pennington County

[2:34] Board of Commissioners who will make the

[2:36] final decision. Item 4 A is conditional

[2:39] use permit review CUR1 1435 for NDN

[2:42] Holdings LLC to review a multifamily

[2:45] dwelling in a suburban residential

[2:47] district and staff recommends approval.

[2:50] Item 4B is conditional use permit review

[2:52] CUR 1748 for Fred and Michelle Prian to

[2:57] review a vacation home rental in an

[2:59] agriculture district and staff

[3:01] recommends approval. Item 4 C is

[3:04] conditional use permit review CUR202

[3:07] for Sunquest LLC Rob Hammerquist to

[3:10] review a vacation home rental in a low

[3:12] density residential district and staff

[3:15] recommends to continue conditional use

[3:17] permit review CR 20-02 to the March 23rd

[3:21] 2026 planning commission meeting to

[3:23] allow the applicant time to obtain an

[3:25] approved operating license. Item 4 D is

[3:28] conditional use permit review CUR 2165

[3:32] for Limestone Creek Ranch LLC Thomas

[3:35] Sters to review a vacation home rental

[3:37] in a rural residential district and

[3:39] staff recommends to end conditional use

[3:41] permit CUR 2165 with the applicant's

[3:45] concurrence as the property is no longer

[3:47] used as a vacation home rental. Item 4E

[3:50] is telecommunications facility permit

[3:52] review COOTCR24-00001

[3:56] for COMNET Cellular doing business as

[3:59] Verizon Wireless to review a

[4:01] telecommunications tower and equipment

[4:02] shelter in an agriculture district and

[4:04] rural residential district and staff

[4:07] recommends approval.

[4:09] » Thank you, Britney. Uh does staff have

[4:12] any items they'd like to have pulled at

[4:14] this time?

[4:14] » No, they do not.

[4:15] » Thank you. Commission, do you have any

[4:18] items that you would like to review or

[4:21] have pulled at this time from the

[4:23] consent calendar?

[4:27] Hearing none, there chair would accept a

[4:30] motion to approve the consent

[4:33] uh calendar as um

[4:37] consent agenda, excuse me, as as

[4:39] published.

[4:40] » So moved.

[4:41] » Second. moved and seconded to approve

[4:43] the consent agenda [snorts] as

[4:46] published. [clears throat] Discussion

[4:49] hearing none. All in favor of the motion

[4:51] signify by saying I.

[4:53] » I.

[4:54] » I.

[4:55] » Opposed? Motion carried. On to item 5A.

[5:06] » Morning commissioners. Jason Thenson,

[5:08] assistant planning director. Agenda item

[5:10] 5A is a request by Todd Lanau for an

[5:12] efficiency dwelling unit. Uh you've seen

[5:15] this item. It was continued from the

[5:16] last meeting because he failed to get

[5:18] out the property owner notifications. Uh

[5:20] he failed to do it again this time. Uh

[5:22] he did send them out certified. So we do

[5:24] have copies of that. So you'll see it on

[5:26] the next agenda or on the next uh

[5:27] planning commission meeting agenda.

[5:30] » Thanks Jason. We'll request to continue

[5:32] it until then. Is there a motion to

[5:35] continue item 5A?

[5:38] So move second

[5:40] » Moved and second to continue agenda item

[5:43] 5A conditional use permit co26-00002

[5:51] uh per staff's recommendation to

[5:54] continue to the meeting at March 9th

[5:57] 2026

[5:59] discussion

[6:01] hearing none all in favor of the motion

[6:03] signify by saying I opposed

[6:07] Motion carried.

[6:09] On to item 5B.

[6:11] » Good morning, Kelsey Roush, planner.

[6:13] Item 5B is a conditional use permit

[6:16] request COCU26-00003

[6:20] to allow caregivers residents on the

[6:22] subject property. Um staff does

[6:25] recommend to continue this uh request to

[6:27] the March 9th, 2026 planning commission

[6:30] meeting as the applicants did not

[6:31] advertise correctly. Um the conditional

[6:34] use permit sign that they need to post

[6:36] where their driveway connects to the

[6:38] road was not posted there. It was

[6:40] actually just sitting up on their deck.

[6:41] Um so we do need to move this to the

[6:44] next meeting.

[6:46] » Thanks Kelsey. We did, you know, in

[6:49] years past there was a number of signs

[6:51] that used to get stuck in between the

[6:54] rungs on the the porch. I can remember

[6:57] those days. Uh so you're correct. It's

[7:00] nice that you guys watch out for that.

[7:03] All right. The staff is proposing that

[7:05] we continue this item to the March 9th

[7:07] meeting.

[7:10] Chair to address a motion.

[7:12] » So moved.

[7:13] » Second. moved and seconded to continue

[7:17] per staff's recommendation continue uh

[7:20] conditional use permit co26-00003

[7:27] discussion

[7:30] hearing none. All in favor of the motion

[7:31] signify by saying I

[7:33] » I

[7:34] » I

[7:35] » Opposed. Motion carried on to item 5C.

[7:39] » Good morning commissioners. Britney

[7:41] Hanigan. Item 5 C is comprehens

[7:44] comprehensive plan amendment

[7:45] COCA26-00001

[7:48] for Pennington County. It's to amend the

[7:50] existing comprehensive plan view to 2040

[7:53] section 3 land use and housing element.

[7:56] Um this was a request um there is a memo

[7:59] in the packet um [clears throat] why

[8:01] this came about. Um during the board of

[8:03] commissioners meeting during our

[8:05] alternative energy um they had requested

[8:08] uh that staff amend the comprehensive

[8:10] plan um to align with what uh they had

[8:13] wanted to see where uh alternative

[8:15] alternative energy systems particularly

[8:19] the utility scale were cited. Um so that

[8:22] changed uh that section on land use. Um

[8:26] if you look under that element um on the

[8:30] 8.3

[8:31] uh they wanted them cited in the

[8:33] industrial zoning districts. Um so I

[8:35] will stand for any questions.

[8:38] » Go ahead.

[8:38] » Mr. Chair, I make a motion. I hope it's

[8:40] not too late to discuss uh 5C and 5D

[8:44] together and vote on them separately

[8:48] » That form a motion. If so,

[8:50] » There's a motion. Yes,

[8:51] » There is. Is there a second to that?

[8:53] » Second. moved and seconded to discuss uh

[8:56] agenda item 5C and 5D as one. We would

[9:00] still vote on them separately. It does

[9:03] take a twothirds vote of the commission.

[9:07] Any discussion? Hearing none, all in

[9:09] favor of the motion signify by saying I.

[9:11] » I.

[9:12] » I.

[9:13] » Opposed? [clears throat] Motion carried.

[9:15] Go ahead and read 5D then and we'll work

[9:18] it that way. Apologize Britney that we

[9:21] did that.

[9:22] » No. Item 5D is comprehensive plan

[9:24] amendment COCA 26-00002

[9:27] for Pennington County to amend the

[9:29] existing comprehensive plan view to 20

[9:31] 240 section 11 the implementation

[9:34] element.

[9:36] » Thank you. All right. Well, we're open

[9:38] for discussion. Question from the

[9:40] commission.

[9:42] » Page 62

[9:44] uh 31 on B or D. It talks about uh

[9:49] military compatibility.

[9:53] » So that has to do with uh so when we do

[9:57] um the utility scale, we have to get

[9:59] like an FAA approval um especially for

[10:02] wind energy because of the height.

[10:04] » Okay. Yeah. So that's what that So the

[10:07] way that the ordinance is written out,

[10:09] any um military operations, any runways,

[10:12] private, public, or military, they

[10:15] require notification if they're within

[10:17] five miles of the project.

[10:19] » Okay,

[10:20] take care of it.

[10:21] » Y

[10:22] » Any other questions for Britney?

[10:26] [clears throat]

[10:26] » Guess mine isn't a question, but it's a

[10:28] comment. Britney, I've been and I'm

[10:31] about to end this for those that are be

[10:34] tickled to death in July. I'm I'm done

[10:37] with my six years of coming back. But I

[10:41] I have to register some disappointment

[10:44] that we go more and more in this

[10:46] direction for things that appear. And uh

[10:49] I even circled some words because they

[10:53] they become critical. I don't think

[10:54] we're vetting these things like we used

[10:56] to. I made a comment before the meeting.

[10:59] We have one of the best septic

[11:01] ordinances in the entire state of South

[11:03] Dakota. Always have had because of the

[11:05] way we went through it and it was tough.

[11:07] You were here during the procedure. At

[11:10] one time, uh we were the leader in the

[11:13] vacation home rental type of things and

[11:15] that's going on in all over the state.

[11:18] But

[11:20] the way I see these things coming

[11:21] through now for ordinance amendments and

[11:24] now this one's a comprehensive

[11:26] amendment. Um

[11:29] nothing's vetted through the planning

[11:31] commission. I don't know why you keep us

[11:33] around sometimes. I think we're headed

[11:35] and I'm not accusing you. I'm saying the

[11:37] planning uh the board of commissioners

[11:39] could eventually transfer some of these

[11:41] things over to your department, get the

[11:43] feedback and do it in house. I mean

[11:47] that's what we're doing. Uh I see and I

[11:50] wrote it said over time the board of

[11:52] commissioners discussed how and where

[11:55] utility solar sc uh scale solar and wind

[11:59] project should be located over what time

[12:01] who how long lately they have but not

[12:05] over time I think that's a stretch of

[12:07] the imagination

[12:09] we as people on the planning commission

[12:13] are supposed to be somewhat of a

[12:16] balancing act in this whole charade.

[12:19] Otherwise, they'd put more board of

[12:21] commissioners on the planning commission

[12:22] to meet with them every time to increase

[12:24] the vote content. We are private

[12:27] citizens supposed to put our input. The

[12:29] idea that we have solar in with wind

[12:32] power. I'm not on the same page with

[12:34] those. And and why are we including

[12:37] those together? They're vastly different

[12:40] things. And then another thing is is

[12:42] what are we doing? And there's people

[12:44] that certainly if we went public on

[12:46] public meetings would notify us. There's

[12:50] tremendous things going on not in this

[12:52] country in regards to solar and wind

[12:55] because we reject the Chinese aspect of

[12:58] solar and the e aspect of China.

[13:03] So where I'm coming from is we're headed

[13:06] in a direction between ordinance

[13:09] amendments uh this one being a

[13:11] comprehensive amendment. We're not

[13:13] vetting through the people or a balance

[13:15] system anymore. We just see these and

[13:18] you want my slam dunk approval of a or

[13:21] my one vote against if the rest of the

[13:23] commissioners don't want to take the

[13:25] time to get into the problems that go

[13:27] into really vetting a thing like this.

[13:30] That's what's the matter. We're trying

[13:31] to avoid those problems, but by doing

[13:33] so, we're casting it in a smaller and

[13:37] smaller loop of who is suggesting what

[13:41] and getting what through the system.

[13:46] That's all. And that's enough. I mean,

[13:48] it's disappointing. This 20 years ago,

[13:52] this wouldn't come here. would have come

[13:54] from the board of commissioners

[13:56] to us to how to approach this and get it

[13:59] done working with you. You know that.

[14:03] And it's not that way anymore. And where

[14:05] are we headed?

[14:07] So between now and July, the ones

[14:10] that'll be happy to see me go, that's

[14:12] fine. But I you're going to hear more on

[14:15] that. And and I did, this isn't the

[14:17] first time I brought this up. I brought

[14:19] it up about the ordinance amendments.

[14:21] We've got to stop just slam dunking

[14:25] these things. Some of them affect people

[14:26] out there and they may affect individual

[14:29] peoples or small quantities of people.

[14:33] They aren't slam dunks in my mind. So

[14:39] anyway, I've said everything I want to

[14:40] say and I guess it's on tape now. So

[14:44] » Thank you.

[14:47] » So I'm going to have to respectfully

[14:49] disagree with you, Charlie. So why I'm

[14:51] saying that is because you have a

[14:52] one-year moratorum.

[14:54] That's a lot of vetting through the

[14:56] process. And that's why we did it

[14:57] because when we started doing it the

[14:59] first time and we did Wild Springs, that

[15:02] was during CO and a lot of people um a

[15:05] lot of citizens were very upset how that

[15:07] went through a process and they didn't

[15:10] know about it. Um that's a pretty huge

[15:13] project. I'm not against Wild Springs.

[15:15] um actually that Jeremy that's running

[15:16] that does a wonderful job but then at

[15:21] that point then it needed to go through

[15:23] a process which um that's why the

[15:25] moratorum was put in place there was a

[15:27] committee uh put in place and some of

[15:30] those um on some of the committee they

[15:32] missed some of the points like the

[15:33] battery storage and other things that

[15:35] were important to the citizens.

[15:38] So we put another moratorium on it and

[15:40] we also um through that process learned

[15:43] a lot of leeching and that goes on with

[15:46] panels um the storage of uh some of the

[15:50] stuff the oil and the different things

[15:52] that are in the uh turbines. The

[15:55] disposal was huge of decommissioning. Um

[16:00] through that process we learned more and

[16:02] more and more why industrial sites

[16:04] needed to be or um large scale winded

[16:09] solar needed to be in um industrial

[16:12] areas for that reason just because of

[16:14] the leeching of those panels

[16:18] and into the waterways. What that does

[16:19] to the land, the battery storage and the

[16:21] the thermal runaway and those different

[16:24] areas that were huge concerns to the

[16:26] citizens that they didn't feel at the

[16:28] time. they were listened to as well. So

[16:30] that one-year process and then it went

[16:32] to you guys and then you guys passed it

[16:33] on to us. So you had that chance to look

[16:35] into all those things. Take your time

[16:38] whether you liked and I don't care if

[16:40] you don't like what we say or not. I

[16:41] like your opinion. I wished it would

[16:44] have been so you guys would have sat

[16:46] here for and if it took you a week, two

[16:50] weeks, 10 times to figure out through

[16:53] that process through this planning

[16:55] commission that those things that these

[16:57] people's concerns were needed to be

[16:59] looked at more and you guys needed more

[17:01] information that could have been passed

[17:03] on after week after week. You didn't

[17:05] have to give it to us.

[17:08] You could have done your due process as

[17:10] long as you needed to do and that's why

[17:12] you're here.

[17:13] All you had to do is continue it, but it

[17:15] was passed on to us right away. So, that

[17:19] process has been done. Your process is

[17:22] to vet it through and not to you don't

[17:24] have to listen to commissioners. What

[17:25] you have to do is vet it through the

[17:26] process of the public and yourselves to

[17:29] find out all that information in order

[17:31] to make a good decision. Unfortunately,

[17:34] you passed it to us and and so we did

[17:37] our due diligence a little bit more. Did

[17:39] I agree with everything on that

[17:40] committee? No. Did I like a lot of stuff

[17:43] on that committee? I did. But the bottom

[17:45] line through all the chemicals and the

[17:47] things that that has to do with, I like

[17:49] the distributed, I like the local level

[17:52] of uh what they did on that. We had a

[17:54] couple concerns and we changed those as

[17:55] well through the local level because of

[17:57] the some of the height I think Jason and

[17:59] then some of the overhang and different

[18:01] things. Um part of that job and you guys

[18:04] already know me by now. I like all that

[18:06] information. I like to get every piece

[18:08] and part in order to make a good

[18:10] decision. and that is your job and I'm

[18:12] never offended if you don't pass things

[18:14] our way or or like what we do. Charlie,

[18:17] you know that about me by now. Um I like

[18:20] your opinion and whatever you say and

[18:22] whatever you look up, I go look up

[18:24] afterwards if it is a concern. So um no,

[18:28] I think that process was a due process

[18:30] for you guys and and when you you have

[18:33] it here and you think we're just going

[18:34] to do it our way and pass it on. No,

[18:36] when it becomes a hard issue, you got to

[18:38] you got to vet it through whether those

[18:40] people are mad at you or not, or they

[18:42] like whether the commissioners like that

[18:44] you don't want to put it in industrial

[18:46] or whatever. [snorts] Um, give good

[18:48] enough reasons. Push what you think is

[18:51] the right thing to do through your

[18:53] information and your um

[18:56] um vetting process

[18:59] and then give your opinion um through

[19:02] that because it does matter. It matters

[19:04] to me. And you guys know that because

[19:06] I've said that um some of the vacation

[19:09] home ordinance or the vacation home

[19:11] rentals and stuff, you already know.

[19:13] Didn't really agree with that. But

[19:15] that's not um a lot of the process that

[19:17] you've done on other things with the

[19:19] mining and stuff. You did a wonderful

[19:20] job as well. Just because you don't

[19:22] agree with me doesn't mean that you're

[19:23] not doing a good job for me. I just like

[19:25] your opinion and and what you guys have

[19:27] and what you guys found. Um, and even

[19:31] today, uh, like that's why I said

[19:32] respectfully, Charlie, um, I disagree

[19:36] because that process is you and you are

[19:38] important to some of us that think that

[19:41] this is the first step of listening to

[19:43] what the public wants.

[19:45] » Can I throw in though a little reply on

[19:47] that? I wasn't necessarily just picking

[19:49] on this one, but if we're going to

[19:51] answer a few comments on that, the one

[19:53] we're looking at, one of the things was

[19:56] we passed it on and if I remember right,

[19:59] I voted against passing it on. Uh there

[20:02] was some interest, there was an

[20:04] immediacy about getting it to the board

[20:07] of commissioners because a number of the

[20:09] commissioners had to decide which way we

[20:11] were going to go. We were dealing with a

[20:13] committee chairman that was in

[20:15] opposition to the report that was

[20:18] submitted to us. The committee chairman

[20:21] happened to be a board of commissioner

[20:23] who then voiced his opinion about what

[20:26] was wrong. We also had land use

[20:28] questions in that. There is no land use

[20:32] involved in this other than the

[20:33] industrial.

[20:35] But at that actual meeting, if you'll

[20:37] remember, the reason it went on was

[20:39] there was an immediacy about the thing.

[20:42] We did stretch it out to allow people to

[20:44] come in and talk. We I believe we

[20:46] continued it one week. Does that sound

[20:48] right?

[20:48] » Yeah, Charlie. And that same

[20:50] commissioner that wanted to be immediate

[20:52] on that ended up because it didn't go

[20:54] his way at the front at the dis

[20:56] » Yeah. wanted to [laughter]

[20:58] have it continued more. So, um, that's

[21:00] not your job.

[21:01] » I don't know.

[21:02] » That's not your job to listen to a

[21:03] commissioner. It's your job to do your

[21:05] planning commissioner stuff. Sir,

[21:07] » Let me finish. I questioned at that time

[21:10] the idea that here's the planning

[21:12] commission looking at something where we

[21:13] got a border commissioner who served on

[21:15] the committee and I don't know what his

[21:17] status was. If you remember, I said

[21:19] spoke up at the time and yet he's

[21:21] opposing the results. I thought that was

[21:23] absolutely

[21:25] quite different than anything we've ever

[21:27] had presented to the planning

[21:29] commission. I believe I spoke to you

[21:31] about it. The idea that that

[21:35] not that he was just the board of

[21:37] commissioner opposing it, but he was on

[21:39] the committee and he's speaking from the

[21:41] audience about opposing it. So, all I

[21:44] can say is that and there was an

[21:46] immediiacy about that vote because I was

[21:48] a little frustrated by that. Uh but

[21:53] the [clears throat] the actual uh

[21:55] industrial thing wasn't uh an issue at

[21:59] all from that committee. I believe land

[22:01] use follow me it it I don't remember

[22:04] that any of the audience members I

[22:06] remember a lot of audience members that

[22:08] were very unhappy about uh the

[22:11] limitation of land use

[22:14] that I remember before we pass it on. So

[22:17] anyway, I understand what you're saying

[22:19] and u I still will speak up and I and I

[22:22] don't mean these things personal. This

[22:24] is business.

[22:25] » This is business.

[22:27] » And I just think we're headed to a

[22:30] direction where you're not going you

[22:31] don't need a planning commission. And I

[22:33] don't know why the state has it in the

[22:35] law if we're going to continue to head

[22:37] this way where we get these things back.

[22:40] To me, this is the second time I've seen

[22:42] this and it's in short order. And the

[22:44] first one was the committee report. I

[22:47] had forgotten. I didn't even remember.

[22:49] Was it a Did they have a name for that

[22:51] committee? I think it was out of your uh

[22:53] your end of it, wasn't it? Uh Deb,

[22:57] » It was out of the board of

[22:58] commissioners, wasn't it? The committee

[23:00] was originally. It wasn't from the

[23:01] planning commission. That committee that

[23:04] worked on it.

[23:05] » Yeah, that was one commissioner and then

[23:07] four um professor.

[23:09] » Matt served on it, didn't you?

[23:10] » I did.

[23:11] » Yeah. Before you were on the

[23:13] » Yes. What do you got? What do you think?

[23:15] » Well, I had a question for Britney if I

[23:17] can, Mr. Chair.

[23:18] » Sure.

[23:18] » Um, so on comprehensive plan 26001,

[23:23] can you speak to how much actual

[23:26] industrial zone area is in is within the

[23:29] county currently?

[23:30] » Like how many acres?

[23:32] » Yeah. Or like is it just one piece of

[23:35] property or is it multiple pieces where

[23:37] these might be? There's multiple pieces

[23:39] and I believe there's about 1,500 acres

[23:42] of industrial zone property in the

[23:44] county right now.

[23:45] » Is it just strictly right south of Rapid

[23:48] City for the most part?

[23:50] » Most of it is in that area. There is

[23:51] some north of um town as well.

[23:54] » Okay.

[23:57] » Yeah, that was my only question at this

[23:58] time. Matt, if I beat up any uh this

[24:02] report because I when Deb talked about

[24:05] this one specifically, I'd forgotten

[24:07] about we did review that committees

[24:10] thing and we had I believe am I correct?

[24:13] I think we continued the first time and

[24:15] that's when the public showed up was at

[24:17] the second one.

[24:18] » That is correct. Yes.

[24:19] » Okay.

[24:20] » Yep.

[24:22] So,

[24:22] » Anything else to offer anybody?

[24:26] I'll put my flag away. Britney did a

[24:28] wonderful job of presenting that. Now,

[24:30] let's get back to the the memorandum

[24:32] that we're dealing with, which is item

[24:35] uh

[24:37] » What's the item number on it, Britney?

[24:39] » 26-00001.

[24:41] » Yeah.

[24:46] [clears throat]

[24:46] Discussion on it.

[24:51] Chair will address a motion.

[24:59] Mr. Chair, I make a motion that we

[25:01] approve comprehensive plan amendment

[25:03] COCA 261.

[25:10] Is there a second?

[25:13] » Second. moved and seconded to approve

[25:16] [clears throat and cough]

[25:18] U comprehensive plan amendment 26-0

[25:23] 01

[25:25] per staff's recommendation

[25:27] uh which is yep to approve

[25:32] any discussion additional discussion

[25:35] hearing none all in favor of the motion

[25:37] signify by saying I I

[25:41] » Opposed I Okay.

[25:45] » What is that? Two.

[25:46] » Two.

[25:47] » Two of them.

[25:48] » Roll call.

[25:50] » I don't think two will do a roll.

[25:52] Anybody unhappy that you know who voted

[25:54] or for or against? Okay. I'm not going

[25:57] to go for a roll call. Matt and I were

[25:59] the ones that voted against it.

[26:02] On to the next one, which is

[26:06] I assume the same number but two, right?

[26:09] » Yes. COCA26-00002.

[26:13] » Thank you. Discussion on 260002

[26:17] before we address a motion

[26:21] hearing. None. This chair would address

[26:22] a motion.

[26:26] » I'll make the motion that we accept that

[26:29] 002.

[26:31] » Is there a second?

[26:32] » Second. Moved and seconded to AC accept

[26:36] per staff's recommendation to approve

[26:38] comprehensive plan amendment 26-00002.

[26:44] » Discussion.

[26:46] [clears throat]

[26:47] » Hearing none. All in favor of the motion

[26:49] signify by saying I.

[26:50] » I.

[26:51] » I.

[26:52] » Opposed.

[26:53] » I.

[26:54] » I.

[26:57] [clears throat]

[26:59] » Thank you.

[27:00] Now I gotta flip back over here. I'm a

[27:04] little slow on that there, Britney. I'll

[27:05] get to the right spot.

[27:08] There you go. Because it's different

[27:10] numbering system used before. So I

[27:12] wasn't going to look too stupid. Okay.

[27:14] We don't need uh item number six. Is

[27:17] that correct today? I don't believe we

[27:20] have anything. So we're going to uh pass

[27:23] on to item number seven. So item number

[27:25] seven is the board of commissioners

[27:27] concurred with the planning commission's

[27:29] recommendations from the February 9th,

[27:30] 2026 planning commission meeting.

[27:33] » Thank you. Questions for Britney on

[27:35] that.

[27:37] All right, we're going on to items

[27:39] number eight. Did we ever have the

[27:41] public today? Did I see any public

[27:44] today?

[27:44] » No.

[27:45] » Okay, so I guess there isn't any items

[27:48] from the public. Items from staff.

[27:50] » Uh just one item. Um, we did hire a

[27:52] planner to replace Megan. Um, he is in

[27:55] the audience. His name is Trenton

[27:56] Miller. So, we welcome him to the

[27:58] office. This is his second week. So,

[28:02] » He looks considerably larger than Megan.

[28:05] [laughter]

[28:07] » Megan was so little to find in the

[28:09] audience sometimes, you know.

[28:10] » Yes. He comes to us with surveying and

[28:13] GIS experience. So, it's a good addition

[28:15] to the office.

[28:17] » All right.

[28:19] be a good idea. You can say hello to

[28:21] everybody before the bomb out of here if

[28:22] you want. Items from the membership.

[28:25] Anything? I already did my spiel, so I'm

[28:28] not going to add to it by keeping you

[28:30] guys longer.

[28:32] All right. Nothing. Is there a motion to

[28:34] adjurnn? So moved.

[28:36] » So moved.

[28:37] » Second. Moved and second to adjurnn. All

[28:39] in favor of the motion signify.

2-23-2026 Pennington County Planning Commission Meeting

Transcript