The Burnsville City Council voted to approve land-use permits and rezoning for the proposed Big Hits at the Gateway entertainment and recreation complex after a lengthy public hearing and council discussion about groundwater contamination and state oversight.

Planning staff recommended approval of a preliminary and final plat, a conditional use permit and a planned-unit development to allow a multi-level, mixed-use venue at 11937 Interstate 35 W. The proposal includes a three-level, 100‑bay interactive driving range, indoor and outdoor courts, conference and event space, restaurants, a children’s playground and trails. Staff noted the site was a former freeway dump and that state agencies must approve remediation and drinking-water protections before building permits are issued.

Supporters, including the project architect Mohammed Lawal and owner Richard McGowan, urged the council to allow the land‑use approvals so the developer can work with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) on remediation. “This is a responsible, well‑researched, well designed development that better protects human health and the environment and creates a premier regional destination for the city of Burnsville,” architect Mohammed Lawal said.

Opponents, including residents and local watershed volunteers, urged the council to require an approved remediation plan before any land‑use approvals. Several speakers cited the MPCA’s analysis and an Oct. 28 MPCA/attorney general lawsuit alleging contaminants are migrating beyond waste boundaries. “I ask you to preserve your vote… stand shoulder to shoulder with the MPCA,” resident David Young told the council.

Staff and council members repeatedly emphasized the distinction between the council’s land‑use authority and state environmental regulators’ technical authority. Planning Manager Mike Marosla and councilors noted the council’s approval is for zoning and land use; MPCA and MDH retain authority over remediation standards and any required response action plan. Marosla told the council the site’s review timeline and agency processes require submission of remediation documents to MPCA and MDH and incorporation of approvals into a development agreement before issuance of building permits.

Key technical details raised during the hearing included staff’s statement that the application was deemed complete July 31, 2025, and that a 120‑day review period was set to expire Nov. 28 (staff noted the applicant and city were aware of that timeline). Staff said the site is located within drinking‑water protective overlays and that, per their records, approximately 17 wells lie in the district with two wells within a half‑mile radius of the subject property.

Environmental consultant Brian Murdock, representing the applicant, described a “manage in place” remediation approach—capping, venting and long‑term monitoring—and said draft response action planning work exists and that the MPCA had been slow to engage. “The waste has already been saturated for decades… We’re turning an outdated driving range into a modern community space with cleaner soil, water, air, and it no burden to taxpayers,” Murdock said. Opponents questioned whether relying on pump‑down measures and monitoring is a durable long‑term solution and raised the MPCA’s stated concerns about PFAS, dioxane and other contaminants.

After council discussion about roles, precedent and the need for borings and agency access, Councilmember Keeley moved to approve the preliminary and final plats, the conditional‑use permit and the planned‑unit development and to adopt rezoning and the findings of fact as recommended by staff and the planning commission; the motion was seconded and the council approved the application with the conditions reflected in the staff packet. Staff reiterated that state agency approvals (MPCA/MDH), a development agreement that memorializes remediation measures and any required third‑party agency approvals are prerequisites to building permits; the conditional use permit carries a one‑year life and would require extension requests if needed.

The project’s next steps are to advance technical remediation planning and permitting with MPCA and MDH; several speakers said MPCA review and any litigation remain central unresolved matters. The council also moved into and out of a closed session later in the meeting on an unrelated real‑property negotiation and then adjourned.