Pennington County narrows where wind and solar can be sited, approving plan amendments 3'to' 2
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
After months of public meetings and a two-year review, the board amended the county comprehensive plan to direct wind and solar development toward industrial zones; commissioners split 3'to' 2 after heated public comment and discussion about property rights, safety and local control.
The Pennington County Board of Commissioners voted 3 to 2 to amend the county's comprehensive plan to indicate that utility-scale wind and solar developments should be sited in industrial zones rather than across agricultural districts.
Planning Director Britney Hann (S17) told the board the change would direct large-scale renewable energy to industrial areas and require ensuing ordinance updates to address setbacks, decommissioning and battery storage. She said staff and a community task force worked for months on the change and that the planning commission had recommended approval of the revised implementation language.
Multiple residents and landowners spoke during the public hearing. Eileen Peterson (S19) said landowners in agricultural areas had signed a petition and asked commissioners to keep such projects out of ag land and put them where they belong. "Industrial siting makes sense for these uses," she said.
Opponents and supporters traded arguments on equity and local impacts. Commissioner Rosknecht (per the record) argued the change "basically kills" large-scale green energy in Pennington County and warned that projects might pursue state permitting if blocked locally. Supporters pointed to safety and environmental concerns, especially battery storage and decommissioning costs, and argued for protecting agricultural lands and rural character.
Commissioner Hatcock warned about thermal-runaway risks from lithium battery storage and potential chemical run-off from panels, framing the change as a health, safety and welfare decision. Other commissioners emphasized the lengthy public process and community consensus in eastern Pennington County that large plants should not be sited in agricultural districts.
The board approved two related plan amendments (COCA26-0001 on land use and COCA26-0002 on implementation language) in separate motions; both passed 3 to 2. Staff and commissioners said an updated zoning ordinance would follow to implement setbacks, battery-storage rules and decommissioning standards.
What happens next: Planning staff will rewrite the county ordinance to align zoning regulations with the comprehensive plan amendments, adding specific requirements for battery storage, setbacks and decommissioning. The ordinance will return to the board for review and subsequent hearings.