Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Infrastructure topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board debates how to count new Powerhouse Pass commercial units against wastewater capacity

Lawrence County Planning & Zoning Board · March 23, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Engineers proposed a wastewater-based 'unit equivalency' table that would treat certain small commercial units (storage units with restrooms) as 0.1 of a commercial unit (30 gpd) versus 300 gpd for a residence; board asked staff to reduce the proposal to a written amendment or memorandum for future recommendation to the county commission.

Planning staff and developers reviewed a proposal to redefine how newly permitted commercial units at Powerhouse Pass should count against the development's commercial-unit cap. The issue arose after building permits for storage-like units and other commercial uses were issued; staff worried that treating each restroom-equipped storage unit as a full commercial unit would rapidly exhaust the allocated 72–74 commercial slots. "Originally, it was, 72 acres and or lots...but what does that mean? Now we're getting actual commercial usage," staff said.

Trent Walters, an engineer with AE2S, presented a technical memo recommending an equivalency approach using wastewater design standards: he proposed 30 gallons per day per restroom-equipped storage unit based on South Dakota design tables and a 300 gpd value for a single-family residence. "So what we're proposing for this first building...the storage units are to use 30 gallons per day," Walters said, adding that using 30 gpd would make each storage unit about 0.1 of a commercial unit (300/30 = 10). Board members discussed whether the table should be a formal amendment to the master plan or a technical memorandum attached to it; staff said an amendment or written table would help future staff apply the rule consistently. No final vote was taken; the board directed staff to prepare the amendment or memorandum and anticipated returning the matter for recommendation to the county commission.