Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Nuisance Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pennington County planning commission backs tighter nuisance rules, flags city‑county jurisdictional overlap
Summary
The Pennington County Planning Commission on Nov. 24 recommended changes to the county nuisance ordinance that shorten an initial notice window, lower the inoperable‑vehicle threshold and clarify manure and sidewalk definitions; county attorneys warned overlapping city 'one‑mile' jurisdiction will require an MOU to avoid double enforcement.
The Pennington County Planning Commission on Nov. 24 voted to forward an amended nuisance ordinance to the Board of Commissioners that narrows the county's first formal notice to property owners and tightens several enforcement thresholds.
The commission approved staff language to add a definition for sidewalks, remove noxious‑weed enforcement (which staff said will be handled by the county Natural Resources director and the weed and pest board), lower the threshold for "inoperable vehicles" from five to three and add a measurable depth standard for unspread manure. The amendment creates a two‑step notice process: a 14‑day initial option period followed by a potential hearing before the Board of Commissioners and an abatement process if owners do not resolve violations.
Why it matters: the changes are intended to make nuisance enforcement more consistent across county code sections and to speed remedial steps when properties present health, safety or maintenance problems. Staff said the 14‑day letter is intended as an early outreach period to prompt contact with planning staff rather than an immediate demand for abatement.
Legal and jurisdictional caveat: commissioners raised repeated concerns about overlapping authority with the city in areas governed by state extraterritorial jurisdiction (referred to in the meeting as "9‑29‑1" or the one‑mile rule). Tyler Sobczak of the State's Attorney's Office told the panel the city does not have exclusive authority over that one‑mile band and cautioned that dual prosecuting entities could create practical problems "where we both could be prosecuting the same person for the same thing." He recommended a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the city so one entity handles enforcement in practice and to avoid duplicative proceedings.
On the notice period, Sobczak said a 14‑day demand letter is unusually short and that his office typically drafts initial demand windows of 28 days; commissioners and staff replied the 14‑day step is an "option" or grace period designed to give property owners a chance to discuss timelines and to avoid immediate escalation to abatement. If owners do not engage or comply, the ordinance provides a later 30‑day hearing step before potential abatement.
Other specifics discussed in the hearing included aligning the inoperable‑vehicle threshold with wrecking‑yard definitions, clarifying whether sidewalks inside developments are captured by the definition (staff said the provision is intended to address snow removal and safety), and adding measurement language for manure accumulations so enforcement officers have a clear standard.
The commission approved OA25‑19 with a clerical correction to section 7 (changing a cross‑reference to "5 s and 5 t"). The recommendation will now go to the Pennington County Board of Commissioners, which makes the final determination.
