|
STURGIS - For the
third time in little more than two months, the Meade County
Commission unanimously approved Sturgis motorcycle rally alcohol
licenses — despite objections from American Indians who decry
commercial encroachment on Bear Butte, which they hold as sacred.
Commissioners
voted 4-0 Friday morning to approve a liquor license transfer from
Mad Mary’s Steakhouse near Piedmont to entrepreneur Jay
Allen’s new biker bar and rally campground north of Sturgis.
Allen, who plans
to call his venue the new Broken Spoke Saloon and the Sturgis County
Line campground, struck a deal last year to buy 600 acres of pasture
land along S.D. Highway 79 north of Bear Butte. Dirt work is now
under way at the north end of the property, and Allen said he plans
to build a 100-foot-by- 150-foot rally- week bar there for this
year’s Sturgis rally in August. Later plans include a possible
concert venue at the south end of the property.
In April, the
commissioners granted Allen a beer license for the same venue.
A month ago, they
granted a full liquor license to Rock’n the Rally at Glencoe
CampResort, a large concert facility south of Bear Butte.
On Friday,
Allen’s attorney Bryce Flint came to the commission with a
request for a full liquor license. And because of a legal quirk,
Allen’s new beer license was one of several Meade County
licenses up for renewal.
“Nothing has
changed since April — character and location are the same,”
Flint told the commissioners.
This time,
however, opponents did raise some new legal questions. Opponents
suggested that Allen’s project did not meet environmental and
historic-preservation requirements.
Allen, an Arizona
resident who operates establishments at motorcycle events nationwide,
was not at Friday’s hearing. Flint said Allen was working at the
Laconia Bike Week event, which starts today in New Hampshire.
Jack Hoel of
Sturgis restated his earlier support of Allen’s plans. He said
suggestions by Indian groups that the county create a no-development
buffer zone around Bear Butte would violate the South Dakota
Constitution. “In the name of religion, you cannot infringe on
the rights of others,” he said.
Opponents restated
their objections. American Indian speakers spoke emotionally of the
need for peace and quiet at a site where Indians have participated in
Sun Dances and other religious rites for centuries.
“I believe
liquor licenses exploit the weakness of humanity. Bear Butte is about
developing the (strength) to overcome these human weaknesses,”
Rosalie Little Thunder said.
Non-Indian
residents of Meade County such as Jessie Levin spoke against the
alcohol licenses. They said the burgeoning popularity of the Sturgis
rally has pushed the noise, dust and disruption onto the country
roads east of Sturgis.
Opponents,
particularly attorneys Thomas Van Norman of the Cheyenne River Sioux
Tribe and Bruce Ellison representing Meade County residents, raised
legal questions.
Ellison cited
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, which protects
the sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places from
damage, denigration or encroachment. Bear Butte has been on the
register since 1973.
Ellison suggested
that Allen’s project has improperly gone forward without the
required review by historic-preservation officials.
Steve Rogers,
historic-preservation coordinator with the South Dakota Historic
Preservation Office, said state and federal laws can require an
official review of projects near historic sites. However, when asked
about the Bear Butte issue, Rogers said he believes that neither law
would apply in the case of Sturgis County Line.
Rogers said
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires review
only if there are federal funds or some other federal involvement in
the project. A few years ago, the preservation act was one of the
tools used to stop construction of a rifle range near Bear Butte.
However, the rifle range involved federal Community Development Block Grants.
There is a state
law, Rogers said, that requires a review of any project that could
harm, threaten or encroach on sites listed on the National Register
of Historic Places. However, the encroachment must come at the hand
of state government or some sub-entity such as a county or city.
Road projects and
even building permits have triggered a Historic Preservation Office
review. But Rogers said he knows of no case where issuing a liquor
license constituted municipal encroachment.
Meanwhile, Van
Norman and others noted that they found no record that Allen received
a storm-water permit for construction or
industrial-storm-water-runoff permit from the South Dakota Department
of Environment and Natural Resources.
“I am not
clear that any state or federal permit has been issued regarding
storm-water runoff &ldots; and there are a lot of environmental
issues that we need to think about, and impacts to adjacent
landowners all over, as well as the people who have used that since
the beginning of their history,” Van Norman said.
DENR spokesman Kim
Smith, contacted by the Journal on Friday, said he, too, could not
find a permit application in Allen’s name. He said the permit
could be in a corporate name or the name of a contractor. The staffer
who handles those permits was out of the office Friday, Smith said.
DENR administers
the Environmental Protection Agency regulations regarding storm-water
runoff at construction sites and industrial areas. A storm-water
permit is required if 1 acre or more is disturbed during construction.
Contact Dan Daly
at 394-8421 or dan.daly@rapidcityjournal.com
NOTE: In
accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is
distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a
prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research
and educational purposes only.
|
