Somerset planning board tables Goosen non‑annexation variance after neighbors and staff raise permitting and nuisance concerns

The Somerset Planning & Zoning Board voted unanimously on Sept. 10 to table four variance requests tied to a proposed subdivision and non‑annexation for property owned by Mr. Goosen, citing unresolved questions about septic, permits and neighborhood impacts.

The board’s decision followed more than an hour of public comment from nearby residents, a neighborhood spokesperson and a Rapid City permitting staff member who presented aerial photos showing two recently placed trailer homes and roughly 0.6 acres of disturbed ground. Residents and business owners said the property already contains multiple wrecked vehicles, trailers and other stored equipment that they fear will depress local property values if allowed to remain or be grandfathered in after annexation.

Board members and staff described the central technical issue as whether the parcel could obtain a septic permit under Meade County rules or whether annexation into the City of Somerset (which would change lot‑size calculations) would be necessary for a compliant sewer solution. Staff told the board that county subdivision and septic rules are stricter in some respects and that a 20,000‑square‑foot threshold discussed in the packet could affect the available options. The board also noted it had approved few similar annexation variances in recent years and expressed concern about setting a precedent that would permit circumvention of ordinance design criteria.

Neighbors and civic stakeholders urged denial of the non‑annexation variance. A neighborhood representative said the group had roughly $15 million in nearby property value at stake and characterized the existing on‑site uses as inconsistent with Somerset’s design standards. Eric Mack, a Rapid City employee who said he reviews permits, said aerial images dated July 9 show two trailer homes and extensive disturbance; he questioned whether grading and building permits or a required grading permit (triggered at about 0.5 acres of disturbance, per his presentation) had been obtained.

Mr. Goosen told the board he did not want to be annexed because he believes some city ordinances — particularly those related to kennel operations and animal limits — would make it difficult to continue his dog‑related activities. He described personal circumstances, prior conversations with county staff and survey work by Renner & Associates, but acknowledged at least one trailer had been placed on a foundation without final permits.

Rather than decide the variances, the board voted to table all variance requests and the related minor plat to allow staff to share packet materials with Meade County’s new planner (identified in the meeting as Tanya) and for the applicant to consult his surveyor (Renner & Associates) to clarify the site plan and permitting path. The board instructed staff to gather clarifying information about septic feasibility, whether current on‑site uses would be grandfathered if annexation occurred, and any outstanding county enforcement history. The item will return to a future meeting after those checks.

The board’s action was procedural rather than an approval or denial: all motions to table passed by voice vote. The meeting concluded with adjournment.

Next steps: staff will forward materials to Meade County for review and return a clarified packet to the Planning & Zoning Board for further consideration.