The Woodbury County Board of Supervisors on Dec. 22 declined to rezone a 36.5‑acre parcel (parcel ending in 0011) from Agricultural Preservation (AP) to Agricultural Estate (AE) but approved a related minor subdivision with a condition limiting development to three additional single‑family dwellings.

Planning staff opened the third and final public hearing, noting the parcel at 2374 252nd Street is being considered concurrently with a minor subdivision application. Applicant Doug Skinner said the board should decide based on the zoning code and permitted uses rather than rhetoric. Neighbors, including Gary McMillan, who lives across the road, urged the board to preserve agricultural character and said a petition of nearby property owners opposed the change.

The board debated competing principles—property rights and what existing zoning allows versus preserving rural character and preventing a pocket of higher density in a very rural area. Chair Bittinger and other supervisors discussed a proposed restrictive covenant that would limit new development to three additional homes within the subdivided area; proponents said that would be more restrictive than some AP allowances, while opponents warned the rezone would signal broader land‑use change.

On the procedural third reading (a reading step distinct from approval of the rezoning outcome), the board recorded a vote with one abstention (final tally recorded as 4 in favor, 0 opposed, 1 abstention). When the board later voted on the ordinance map amendment itself (AP→AE with restrictions), the motion failed; the transcript records the outcome as three nays, one yes and one abstention.

After the rezone failed, the board received the zoning commission’s recommendation on the minor subdivision plat and directed staff that the recorded plat must conform to existing zoning (AP). The board then approved the 252 Overlook minor subdivision with the corrected plat dimension and the restriction that development be limited to no more than three additional single‑family dwelling units within the proposed subdivision.

Planning staff clarified that, because the rezone was not adopted, the plat as recorded must conform to AP zoning and associated standards (for example, AP front setback is 100 feet versus 75 feet for AE). The board’s actions separate the zoning district decision (failed) from plat approval (approved with restriction).