Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission defers decision on contested biogas utility permit after objections from neighbors
Summary
The commission heard competing arguments over Conditional Use Permit #21‑76 for a biogas-to-gas connection proposed by Northern Natural Gas and Brightmark, directed both parties to submit legal materials on whether Northern Natural Gas qualifies as a public utility, and deferred the appeal to Jan. 4, 2022.
The Minnehaha County Commission on Dec. 21 heard a contested appeal of Conditional Use Permit #21‑76, a proposed public utility facility to collect methane from local dairies, convert it into pipeline-quality gas and connect to regional lines. The Commission deferred consideration and asked both sides to supply additional legal and factual support on a central question raised by opponents.
Planner Kevin Hoekman summarized the planning commission’s prior approval and described the project components that triggered a conditional use permit, including above‑ground structures exceeding 120 square feet. Proponents Jason Sutton, representing Northern Natural Gas, and William Taylor, representing Brightmark, described technical aspects of the project and said the companies had sought to address neighbors’ visual, noise and safety concerns.
Opponents — represented by attorney Reece Almond and including property owners David and Nicole Dybvig‑Wirkus — raised concerns about potential financial harm to nearby property owners, construction and floodplain risks, and ongoing noise from generators and compressors. Almond also argued, on legal grounds, that Northern Natural Gas is not a public utility and therefore could not apply for the conditional use permit as a public utility facility; he presented a copy of an “Initial Brief of Northern Natural Gas Company” filed in a prior Public Utilities Commission matter (NG16‑014) to support that contention.
After a motion and a brief executive session the commission directed both parties to provide supporting material specifically regarding the definition of a public utility and to file that information prior to the Jan. 4, 2022 meeting. The commission then moved to defer the appeal to Jan. 4, 2022. Commissioner Heiberger made the motion; Commissioner Barth seconded. The motion to defer carried; recorded votes reflect a four‑member majority at the time of the motion due to a brief absence earlier in the meeting.
The deferral preserves the planning commission approval while giving the county additional time to review legal arguments about the applicable land‑use classification and whether the applicant is properly characterized as a public utility under county rules and state precedents.
Next steps as announced at the meeting call for both sides to file the requested legal materials and return to the commission on Jan. 4, 2022, when the appeal will be reconsidered.
