Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Nuisance Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission refers nuisance complaint over septic system at 2463 Carter Drive to state’s attorney
Summary
A Pennington County nuisance hearing under SDCL 34-16-19 involving the septic system at 2463 Carter Drive (Lot 10, Rolling Hills Estates) concluded with the board referring the matter to the county state's attorney for further action. The property owner disputed the county's findings and raised separate litigation and discovery claims.
Pennington County commissioners referred a nuisance complaint concerning the septic system at 2463 Carter Drive to the Pennington County state’s attorney’s office after a hearing conducted under SDCL 34-16-19.
Planning Director Britney Molitor explained the procedure: after an office finds a nuisance, statute allows the property owner to request a hearing before the board to determine whether to pursue compliance, abatement or other remedies. Molitor said county staff issued the notice after receiving information that the property's on-site wastewater treatment system was not functioning.
Property owner (identified in the record as Miss Lundell) disputed the county’s findings and described a long-running dispute involving the septic installation, a contractor and prior enforcement actions; she also referenced separate litigation and an asserted criminal prosecution history that she said related to the property transaction. She told the commission she had been pursuing relief in other venues and that some approvals and variances were previously in place according to the state agency process she cited.
Commission action: Following discussion and a short exchange confirming the system had been reviewed by an auction-winning contractor and that the system had been found breached, the board voted to refer the nuisance complaint for 2463 Carter Drive (Lot 10, Block 2, Rolling Hills Estates) to the Pennington County state’s attorney’s office for further action.
What it means: The referral moves the matter out of the commission’s hearing process and into the state’s attorney’s office for legal evaluation and possible next steps under statute. Commissioners did not order abatement or immediate county remedial work at the hearing; referral to the state’s attorney was the formal outcome on June 3.
