Watertown Board of Adjustment approves conditional-use permit for county detention center

The City of Watertown Board of Adjustment voted unanimously 7-0 March 6 to approve a conditional-use permit to construct a county detention center on an existing 8.75-acre Lot 3 in the A‑1 agricultural district.

“So this is a conditional use request for a public or quasi public institutions or services use, in the a 1 agricultural district, and this is to construct the detention center, for the county,” said Britney, a city planner presenting the request.

The permit allows a use that city staff said is appropriate in the A‑1 zoning classification and is required because the lot is already platted. Britney told the board that the parcel is 8.75 acres; under current platting rules a newly platted lot would need to be 35 acres, but the lot in question is preexisting. She said the applicant is finalizing a site plan and that the project will connect to city utilities.

City staff and board members discussed access. Brandy, who handled roll call and permit details, said the project has two approved access points through permits with the South Dakota Department of Transportation (DOT). One access would use an easement that runs parallel to Highway 212; Brandy said the applicant “just received approval from the DOT this week, so they had to make sure the DOT was good with it before they start negotiations,” and that the western access will require negotiation with the owner of the adjacent Lot 2 (zoned I‑1).

Board members asked whether the eastern entrance would be a controlled access and whether the western access would be gated or limited to emergency use. Staff responded that both accesses are allowed under the permits, that the eastern portal is likely to be the primary controlled access, and that the western drive could be used for emergency access though final operational decisions (for example, gates) had not been specified.

During the public hearing, the sheriff spoke in support of the project and thanked county officials for coordinating with local bodies. The sheriff also referenced a court case in Brookings regarding a jail, noting that under current case law the county would not be required to seek local permission; the sheriff said he appreciated the county’s outreach. No other members of the public offered comment.

A board member made a motion to approve findings that the use is permissible on the already‑platted lot in the A‑1 district, noting there were no objections raised during the hearing; the motion was seconded by Dolly. Chair Liam called for a roll-call vote. The board voted 7 in favor, 0 opposed; the board had stated earlier that four affirmative votes were required for approval.

Key clarifying details recorded during the meeting include: the lot size (8.75 acres); that the lot is already platted so the 35‑acre minimum for new plats did not apply; two DOT‑approved accesses (one requiring negotiation with an adjacent Lot 2 owner); an 80‑foot access easement running parallel to Highway 212; and that the site will connect to city utilities. Board members and staff repeatedly noted that the applicant is finalizing the site plan and that future street extension obligations would fall to the developer if public streets are later required.

The board’s approval is a conditional‑use permit only; staff and the applicant must still complete final site plan work, negotiate the western access if that route is pursued, and meet any conditions of other permits. No construction timetable or contractor or county department lead was specified at the hearing.

Votes at a glance: Conditional‑use permit for detention center on Lot 3 (A‑1 agricultural district) — motion by Spire; second by Dolly; vote 7‑0, approved. Required threshold: four affirmative votes; result: approved with seven affirmative votes.

The board adjourned after a brief period of new and old business with no additional public comment.