Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Planned Unit Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission denies planned‑unit development overlay for Silver Creek Road resort project amid floodplain concerns
Summary
The commission voted to deny a planned‑unit development overlay (COPU25‑0001) for a specialty resort near Rocheford Road and Silver Creek Road because the applicant had not provided updated floodplain data; staff had recommended denial without prejudice but the commission voted to deny with prejudice.
The Pennington County Planning Commission on May 12 voted to deny Planned Unit Development overlay application COPU25‑0001, an overlay requested to allow a specialty resort north of Rocheford Road and Silver Creek Road, citing incomplete floodplain information.
Staff recommendation and rationale
Megan Talmadge, planner, told the commission the item had been continued from an earlier meeting. She said staff had not received updated floodplain analysis from the applicant and that neighbors had submitted additional comments. "Due to there being no further information on the floodplain, staff recommends to deny this item without prejudice," Talmadge said, explaining that denying without prejudice would allow the applicant to resubmit within one year after completing hydraulic and flood‑mitigation analysis.
Commission action and debate
During deliberations a commission member argued the application should not return, regardless of new studies. "I don't think that this should come back within a year, no matter what happens at any time," the member said. The motion to deny the overlay with prejudice passed, preventing the applicant from reapplying within the one‑year window described by staff.
Implications
Staff told the commission the property has a history of flooding and that the applicant previously provided a preliminary hydraulic analysis; staff said that was not sufficient to map the floodplain or to demonstrate mitigation measures. Denial with prejudice bars an immediate resubmission; staff had recommended denial without prejudice so the applicant could revise and return. The commission did not adopt any conditions or provide an alternative approval path at the meeting.
Next steps
The applicant may seek to clarify whether other administrative or appeal remedies are available, or wait until the one‑year period has passed if the denial stands with prejudice. Staff noted that if the applicant obtains a new, documented floodplain analysis and mitigation plan, the applicant could resubmit after the prescribed period if a denial without prejudice were not already in place.
