Planning commission backs removing one parcel from Hazel Lane PUD, forwards rezoning and comp‑plan amendment; variance for more units goes to county board

The Pennington County Planning Commission on July 14 recommended approval of three related items for property at 22611 Hazel Lane: a major planned‑unit‑development amendment to remove the subject lot from the PUD (PU03‑03), a comprehensive plan amendment to change future land use from Planned Unit Development to Ranchette (COCA25‑0007), and a rezone from Planned Unit Development to Ranchette (CORZ25‑0009). Jason Dennison, assistant planning director, presented the requests and staff recommendations. Why it matters: Neighbors say the area has limited access (one way in, one way out), private septic and water systems and an established character they want preserved. A separate variance to allow “more than 40 dwelling units on a dead‑end road” has been filed and is scheduled for decision by the Pennington County Board of Commissioners on Aug. 5. That variance — not the planning commission’s recommendation on rezoning — will determine whether additional lots could be created and developed under the applicant’s subdivision plan. What the commission heard: Jason Dennison said staff approved a May layout plan showing two 5‑acre lots (lots 2A and 2B) and recommended the rezoning and comp‑plan amendment because the Ranchette designation better matches surrounding land uses. The parcel contains a single‑family residence built about 1890, several outbuildings, an existing on‑site wastewater treatment system, and a vacation‑home‑rental license. Several residents spoke in opposition or with concern. Dessel Peterson and Diane (last name on record) said they had not received certified mailed notices before the meeting and that the variance — not the commissions’ items — is the primary issue of concern because Hazel Lane serves a cluster of homes with a single dead‑end access. "The variance is the bigger issue for all of us," Dessel Peterson said, adding she supported the rezoning but wanted assurance the variance would be scrutinized at the board of commissioners. Planning staff response and notice receipts: Jason Dennison and Britney Molitor, planning director, said certified‑mail receipts for notice had been returned and that staff had posted the required signs on July 3. Molitor explained that the board of commissioners serves as the board of adjustment for variances in Pennington County and that state codified mail timing requires mailings to be sent 10 days prior to hearings; staff also noted delivery timing can sometimes delay receipt by neighbors. Commission action: The commission voted to approve the PUD amendment (PU03‑03) with five staff conditions, then recommended approval of the comprehensive plan amendment COCA25‑0007 and the rezone CORZ25‑0009. Each motion carried by voice vote. The variance request to allow more than 40 dwellings on a dead‑end road will be considered by the Pennington County Board of Commissioners at its Aug. 5 meeting; the planning commission does not hear variances in this county. Clarifications recorded: Staff said approval of the rezone and comp‑plan amendment does not, by itself, grant the variance or any subdivision approval. Even if the property is rezoned to Ranchette — which permits residential uses consistent with surrounding parcels — the applicant would still need a variance and any required subdivision approvals to create additional buildable lots. Background and next steps: The applicant, Kristen Bennett of Haven Homes LLC, was present. The planning commission’s recommendations will be forwarded to the county board, which makes the final decisions on the rezone and the variance (as board of adjustment). The variance hearing is scheduled for Aug. 5, 2025; staff asked neighbors to submit concerns and cited the statutory 10‑day notice period for certified mailings. Ending: The commission advanced the land‑use and zoning recommendations while neighbors prepare to press their case to the Board of Commissioners on the pending variance.