Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation Road Design Jurisdiction topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident raises concern over road width and jurisdiction; planning commission directs her to county board
Summary
A resident said a new road adjacent to her home was built narrower than a previously recommended collector-road width and reported receiving conflicting jurisdictional guidance from the city and county; commissioners recommended she present the issue to the Pennington County Board of Commissioners.
Get email alerts on the Transportation Road Design Jurisdiction topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
A resident attending the March 10, 2025 Pennington County Planning Commission meeting said a new road adjacent to her home near 4134 Sweet Briar was being built to a 55-foot width, although an earlier staff recommendation tied to approved plans had said the road should be 68 feet wide.
The resident, who identified herself as Laurie and said she lives at 4134 Sweet Briar, told commissioners she had contacted both county and city offices and received conflicting information about who has jurisdiction. Laurie said the original approval (staff reference PL 21 PL 156) included a staff recommendation for a 68-foot collector road.
Planning staff clarified that the site is not within the city’s three-mile planning jurisdiction that would trigger city subdivision standards; staff advised that exceptions or modifications to city requirements would have been handled through the city council process when the city controlled the applicable subdivision approvals. Planning Director Britney Molitor said staff attend city development review team meetings and would raise the resident’s concern with city staff, but she also recommended the resident bring the matter to the Pennington County Board of Commissioners so the board can consider the jurisdictional dispute.
Commissioners’ direction: Commissioners advised the resident to present the issue to the County Board of Commissioners under its items-from-the-public process so the board can, if it chooses, inquire of city officials or seek intergovernmental clarification. One commissioner noted a county commissioner is scheduled to attend a joint development-review meeting this week and that staff would continue to monitor the issue.
What was not decided: The Planning Commission did not change any approvals or issue any formal order; the meeting record shows only staff clarifications and a recommendation to the resident to pursue the county board route.

