Meade County commissioners continue hearing on Infinity Landing airpark after hours of opponent testimony

The Meade County Board of Commissioners on Tuesday continued a public hearing on a request to vacate and relocate a section line for the proposed Infinity Landing airpark, after about two hours of public testimony from both opponents and proponents.

The board set the continued hearing for June 10. The move means the commission will not decide at this meeting whether to vacate the unimproved section line and locate a new county road in a different place; if approved later, any road construction would require separate engineering review and permits.

The hearing drew more than a dozen speakers from nearby neighborhoods who said they live along Peterson Road, Haines Avenue and Elk Creek Road. Many opponents said the existing dirt runway and preliminary construction already on the site have reduced a county unimproved section line to an impassable condition and that the developer began earthwork before the county had completed its review. Todd Battest, who said his property adjoins the section line, told commissioners the work that had been done “would support” an allegation that a crime had occurred under SDCL 31‑32‑1, the criminal statute for intentionally damaging a public highway. Deputy State’s Attorney Ken Clubbred told the commission a complaint had been referred from the sheriff’s office and that investigators had not yet presented charges to a grand jury; no warrants had been issued as of the meeting.

Opponents stressed safety and environmental concerns. Dr. Thomas Rehrer, a local physician, urged the county to consider lead exposure from aviation gasoline, saying “there is no safe level of lead exposure, particularly in the development of children.” Several neighbors said they fear low-altitude traffic over residential subdivisions and cited Federal Aviation Administration guidance on minimum altitudes over settlements. Speakers also raised wildfire risk, fuel‑spill response times and inadequate local firefighting resources: Bambi Arlod cited local drive times to area fire departments, listing Rapid City Fire Department (about 19 minutes, 10.4 miles) and Rapid City Regional Airport Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting facility (about 33 minutes, 19.7 miles), and said volunteers at nearby departments had provided support letters but that distance remained a concern.

Proponents and pilots urged commissioners to weigh safety benefits of the proposed relocation, saying the longer runway that the relocation would enable would let pilots land farther from homes. Craig Baumiller, the property owner and project proponent, said the relocation would “make my runway ... safer” and allow a longer landing distance; he said Ellsworth Air Force Base had been contacted and that, based on his communications, base representatives had not objected to the proposal. Several pilots and aviation residents told the board that transient aircraft noise is short‑lived and comparable to other rural noise sources and that aviation culture emphasizes safety.

Multiple residents asked the commission to require additional technical studies before authorizing a relocation. One nearby landowner told the board there was no county record showing full engineered plans for how surface water would cross the proposed road alignment; another requested a drainage study and an engineering plan showing culvert sizes and the proposed road section before any formal change to a county right-of-way.

Commissioners and staff clarified that the agenda item before the board was strictly the request to vacate and relocate a section line — not final approval of any road construction or subdivision. Planning staff confirmed the developer had submitted a preliminary plat and that some federal and state permits (including a South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources permit) had been discussed; the county planner said preliminary plat review does not substitute for final engineered road plans required before construction.

Deputy State’s Attorney Clubbred told commissioners they may proceed with a hearing even while criminal allegations are under investigation, because the county’s administrative decision about a section line does not undo events that occurred beforehand. Sheriff West confirmed an investigation was underway and that the matter had been referred to the state’s attorney for review; the sheriff said no charges had been filed as of the hearing.

After discussion, a commissioner moved and the board unanimously voted to continue the hearing to the June 10 meeting to allow time for follow‑up materials, additional engineering and legal review.

What’s next: The commission asked the developer to provide clearer engineering and drainage documentation, and commissioners suggested options such as requiring a developer agreement or temporary easements and bonds before considering a relocaton. The June 10 hearing will return only the section‑line relocation question; any separate application to construct or improve a road, or a final subdivision plat, will require separate filings and review by the county planning office.