Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Deuel County planning panel declines to recommend rezoning for Missouri River Energy Services plant; CUP action delayed
Loading...
Summary
The Deuel County Planning Commission on March 17, 2026, voted not to recommend rezoning about 71 acres for a proposed Missouri River Energy Services power plant after residents raised noise, traffic and land‑use concerns; the related conditional‑use permit was postponed to April 13 pending county commission action.
The Deuel County Planning Commission voted on March 17, 2026, not to recommend rezoning roughly 71 acres from Agricultural to Commercial/Industrial for a proposed Missouri River Energy Services (MRES) natural‑gas generation facility, after an extensive public hearing that centered on noise, traffic, siting and long‑term land‑use impacts. The commission then postponed action on a related conditional‑use permit (CUP) to the April 13 meeting, contingent on any subsequent county commission decision on rezoning.
The rezoning request, filed by Missouri River Energy Services and property owner James E. Peterson Living Trust, would allow a range of commercial and industrial uses on a 71‑acre parcel; MRES says the actual developed footprint for the proposed plant would be about 20 acres. Matt Schull, president and CEO of MRES, described the agency as "a nonprofit joint action agency representing 61 member communities across four states" and said the project was designed to improve regional reliability, with construction potentially beginning in 2027 and operation targeted for 2029. Terry Wolf, MRES vice president and chief operating officer, said the site was chosen for pipeline access, substation proximity and road infrastructure and predicted more than $1 million a year in local property tax revenue and some local jobs.
Supporters' claims about reliability and regional benefits were met with persistent local concerns. Jacob Poling, a senior acoustician with Stantec Consulting, presented a noise study based on 16 days of baseline monitoring and conservative modeling, saying mitigation such as enclosed turbines, silencers and sound‑rated buildings means "projected noise levels at nearby residences are expected to meet or remain below regulatory standards." MRES staff also said lighting would follow dark‑sky principles to limit light pollution.
But dozens of residents urged the Planning Commission to deny the rezoning. Public commenters raised several recurring objections: the hilltop location and proximity to wetlands and native prairie; narrow rural roads and safety risks from diesel deliveries for backup fuel; potential impacts on property values and pollinators; cumulative industrialization in the area, and the adequacy of traffic and noise studies. Michelle Oftedahl and others questioned differences between the proposed design and nearby existing facilities and asked for independent review of the noise analysis. One resident, Frank James of Toronto, said the project "should be denied for sliding under the deadline," citing a recently passed moratorium he said the project bypassed. Kim Harringa identified an apparent error in the PUC application that referenced a non‑existent "Toronto Township," and other residents asked that measurements account for atmospheric effects that can carry sound farther in some conditions.
Board members pressed the applicant on several technical points, including why the rezoning requested 71 acres when the plant footprint is around 20 acres; the status of transmission easements (Wolf said most easements are secured and others are under negotiation); water use (applicants said water demand would be minimal and a second well would be for backup and fire protection); and enforcement of the county's 45 dBA noise standard, including post‑construction sound testing. Wolf said similar peaking facilities typically operate about 10–20% of the time and that fuel‑oil backup use would be rare and mainly in cold months. The zoning officer, Jodi Theisen, advised postponing CUP action until April 13, 2026, to allow further evaluation and to ensure rezoning is resolved first.
On the Planning Commission motion to recommend rezoning from "AG" to "CI," the roll call was recorded with Jay Grabow voting yes and multiple commissioners and members voting no; the motion failed and the commission did not forward a recommendation of approval to the Deuel County Board of Commissioners. The Planning Commission adjourned and reconvened as the Board of Adjustment, which voted unanimously to postpone final action on the CUP to the April 13 meeting, contingent upon any county commission action on the rezoning.
The applicant emphasized ongoing community outreach and said several mitigation measures were incorporated into the design; residents urged further study, independent review and stricter, enforceable conditions. The next procedural step is county commission consideration of the rezoning; the CUP will be considered by the Board of Adjustment on April 13 if the rezoning is approved.
Authorities and regulatory references cited during the hearing included the Deuel County Zoning Ordinance (Section 1102 and Section 1247), the county comprehensive plan, the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission review process, and the county's 45 dBA noise standard for residential areas. The record shows both technical studies and community objections will be part of the county commission's forthcoming review.