Pennington County Planning Commission on Nov. 24, 2025, voted to recommend three ordinance amendments that update zoning definitions, tighten animal-keeping rules and revise the county nuisance ordinance, after commissioners raised concerns about intergovernmental jurisdiction and enforcement timelines.

Britney Hahn, Pennington County planning director, told the commission the package includes OA25‑17 to add and clarify definitions (cabins, bunkhouses, studio, kennel and cemetery), OA25‑18 to revise special animal-keeping regulations and OA25‑19 to amend the nuisance ordinance (Ord. 106). Hahn said the changes are intended to make permit and building-permit processes clearer and to align related code sections. "Staff is recommending approval" of the applications and the proposed wording, Hahn said.

The animal-keeping amendment drew sustained discussion about poultry and noise. Under the draft language, suburban residential districts would be limited to chickens and common pets (cats and dogs); roosters would remain restricted to agricultural districts because of noise. Commissioners raised operational concerns, including how density formulas could, under some calculations, produce unusually high allowable counts. Hahn said the changes aim to standardize setbacks and definitions so permit reviewers and applicants have clearer guidance.

The nuisance ordinance revisions include a new definition for "sidewalk," removal of noxious-weeds language (moved to the county Natural Resources/Weed & Pest board), a reduction in thresholds for inoperable-vehicle accumulation (from five to three) and the addition of a 14‑day "option" notice before escalation to a hearing and potential abatement. Hahn summarized the proposed timeline as roughly a 45‑day process from initial notice to potential abatement action.

Commissioners pressed on how enforcement would work inside areas where Rapid City uses extraterritorial authority under state law. Commissioner comments cited SDCL 9‑29‑1 and asked whether the city or county has exclusive jurisdiction inside the one‑mile boundary. Tyler Sobzak, Pennington County state's attorney, said the city does not have exclusive jurisdiction and that the city and county can have concurrent jurisdiction in the same area, which could create prosecutorial and procedural conflicts. "We both have jurisdiction, but there's internal issues associated with them doing that," Sobzak said, recommending a memorandum of understanding with the city to clarify who handles nuisance enforcement in areas near municipal boundaries.

Sobzak also suggested commissioners consider extending the initial notice period; he said, based on his practice, demand letters he drafts are usually 28 days or longer. Other commissioners described the 14‑day step in the draft as an "option letter" designed to prompt property owners to contact staff, arrange additional time, or otherwise avoid escalation to a formal abatement hearing.

The commission discussed procedural details and clerical corrections (Hahn noted one correction to section 7.a.2) before moving each item. The commission voted to forward OA25‑17, OA25‑18 and OA25‑19 to the Board of Commissioners with the recommended language; the board is scheduled to consider planning commission recommendations at its Dec. 2, 2025 meeting.

What remains: the city and county must clarify how to coordinate enforcement within the one‑mile extraterritorial boundary and finalize any interlocal agreement or drafting changes to avoid overlapping prosecutions. The county's next procedural step is the Board of Commissioners hearing, at which final adoption or further amendments could occur.