[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.