Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Yankton County adopts zoning text changes; commissioners debate whether energy storage should require separate conditional‑use permit
Summary
The board approved advertised changes to multiple zoning articles; commissioners debated language that would require battery or other energy‑storage facilities to obtain a separate conditional‑use permit even when sited with a solar or wind project.
At a public hearing, the Yankton County Board of Commissioners approved advertised amendments to several zoning articles — including residential and commercial district definitions — but commissioners discussed at length whether energy‑storage facilities should be treated as accessory uses to large wind or solar projects or instead require a separate conditional‑use permit (CUP).
Gary, the county planner (presenting the ordinance changes), summarized the second reading and the set of article edits. "This second reading, to consider recommendation to amend definitions ... Article 8, high density residential district ..." he said as he read the scope of edits. Commissioners agreed to the advertised changes "as presented in the packet." The board then voted to approve the ordinance changes as advertised.
During discussion, one commissioner raised concern about language on page 18 excluding energy‑storage facilities from the definition of accessory facilities for large wind installations: "I still don't like the on page 18. Large wind energy conversion system, the accessory facility did not include facilities utilized for energy storage," the commissioner said. Another commissioner explained that utility or "utility facilities" language could cover storage but acknowledged the provision would force a project developer to seek a second CUP for a battery farm placed on the same property as a wind or solar farm.
Commissioners suggested adding an explicit conditional‑use category for "energy storage facility" or defining it (for example, "battery farm") so the conditional‑use list would clearly state the permit requirement. Gary and planning‑commission representatives said adding the use to the conditional list would make the review path clearer to the public.
The board closed the public hearing after no members of the public spoke. The board approved the ordinance changes "as advertised" and directed staff to republish required notices for subsequent hearings and filings. Commissioners noted the change would trigger at least three public hearings (planning commission and two county hearings) for any future CUPs related to extending high‑density designations or siting major utility facilities.
The motion to adopt the advertised ordinance changes carried at the meeting; commissioners recorded the action as approval of the advertised packet.
