Bismarck Tribune - Bismarck News - Burleigh hears criticism of comprehensive plan

Burleigh hears criticism of comprehensive plan

Dec 02, 2008 - 04:05:26 CST

By LEANN ECKROTH
Bismarck Tribune

Burleigh County Commissioners on Monday met a slew of negative comments about their drafted county comprehensive plan during a public hearing at the City/County Building.

Commissioners will review testimony at their 5 p.m. Dec. 15 meeting and hope to vote on a final document in January.

Steve Patience, a consulting engineer planner, said the structure of the comprehensive plan will not allow enough latitude to decide what is best for the county. "You are going to get struck down. The only thing I would like to see in this plan is some kind of out that you can make the best decision."

"This is probably your last and best opportunity to have input on what your planning commissions will do for the next few years," Harley Swenson cautioned. "You need to be careful of the direction you give your planning department.

"This document (infringes) on people's rights. There was never a shortage of lots in the city. I think people chose to live in the country. This document will severely restrict that right to choose."

Swenson described the vision statement as wrong.

"It takes away people's right to live really where they want to live. It says you have to live in the city or adjacent to the city where sewer and water are available. I don't think that should be the limit on our choices."

Swenson added it discourages homes on top of hills overlooking the Missouri. "Those kind of rules and regulations are something we can do without."

Jon Dwyer said the plan must balance the needs of various interests, including homeowners, agriculture, there are recreational, conservation, developer/business and property-rights.

"I am here to object to this ill-conceived plan, which takes legitimate property rights away from the rural residents and gives a dangerous and unnecessary degree of power and authority to the city of Bismarck," said Richard Hammond.

"For a very long time, the city of Bismarck has sought to extend control of as large of an area as possible beyond its corporate borders at the expense of us who live in the rural area," Hammond said.

"This so-called comprehensive use plan is just one more way for the city to increase its degree of control. The fundamental flaw is that rural residents have been given no say in the process. Once this plan is implemented, our representational rights will be gone forever."

Farmer and rancher Neil Effertz said he was disappointed in the latest draft. "My primary objection is that comprehensive plan is much too comprehensive. ... It was developed without any input from active, productive agricultural people who are busy farming and ranching in Burleigh County. ... It re-addresses things we addressed five years ago (which was an) effort to take away property rights from us. We compromised. At that point, we were reassured there would be no effort to re-address these issues. This plan appears to do that."

Charles Manders felt the plan would be an excellent too lfor controlling property taxes. "Enforcing a comprehensive plan and subsequent ordinances is not infringement on property rights. ... If the county, cities and townships are going to enforce zoning and subdivision regulations, they need to have a comprehensive plan in place."

Manders said the old plan would not work. "It was anybody could do any development, any way they pleased."

Paul Landahl said with Burleigh County's phenomenal growth, it cannot be sending no growth signals to the financial community. "This new comp plan is ill-founded. If we move forward with this, it is going to be a mistake that we wished didn't happen."

John Spitzer, vice president of the Burleigh County Township Officers Association, said they met with consultant Cindy Gray and specified they did not want it to affect those townships which are zoned. He doesn't believe it was placed in the draft plan. "We believe the state gives us zoning authority and gives (the county) subdivision authority. If there is a conflict , the township's zoning should prevail."

"I think we come back in two weeks and discuss it between the commissioners," said Vice Chair Jim Peluso.

He presided for an absent Jerry Woodcox. "I personally will have a proposal. ... At this point, I would say there are going to be some revisions. ... We do not want to affect any landowners' rights. We do not want to affect any financial burden on them because of this plan," Peluso said.

Peluso said they wanted to retain flexibility to make the right decisions about new subdivisions and new developments. "It is kind of a high-wire act."

Peluso was pleased they received some new comments instead of rehashing items talked about several times. "There definitely is a new viewpoint between rural people and those who live in the city. ... People do like to live in the country."

"I do not have a crystal ball on where the commission is going to go, but this board is going to take a serious look at whether anybody's property rights would be affected by the comprehensive plan," said new Commissioner Brian Bitner who assumed his new duties on Monday.

"I think the citizens who were here tonight made some clear, convincing points that we are definitely going to have to consider," he said.

(Reach reporter LeAnn Eckroth at 250-8264 or leann.eckroth@bismarcktribune.com.)

News > Local

Printer friendly version Burleigh hears criticism of comprehensive plan

Comments

Jonny B wrote on Dec 4, 2008 12:30 AM:

" The Comprehensive Plan is intended for the benefit of the majority of people in Burleigh County and not just for the vocal minority who believe that the plan may reduce the most lucrative use of their land even if it is harmful to the community. The county is not physically seizing any property. When a regulation deprives all economic or productive use of someones land, a taking has occurred. A mere diminution in property is not a taking. The Supreme Court in Lucas v. Forty-Fourth General Assembly, 377 U.S. 713 (1964) held that a regulation banning land development was not a taking because the land still had value. Also consider the CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA, ARTICLE I, DECLARATION OF RIGHTS, Section 2. All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for the protection, security and benefit of the people, and they have a right to alter or reform the same whenever the public good may require. "

riverman wrote on Dec 3, 2008 9:28 PM:

" the plan is a must. a very vocal minority just might destroy this plan.
the same people that complain about the plan, will surely in the future complain when a housing development ends up "ruining their view", or the alteration of a watershed by a housing development "ruins their ag land. "

Jonny B wrote on Dec 3, 2008 8:17 AM:

" The planning department spend a great deal of money and time developing a good comprehensive plan. The Burleigh County Commissioners will most likely gut the plan to the point where it becomes a two page waste of time. They will pass it and believe that they did something productive. This happened a several years ago with the ordinance to guide river front development. The Burleigh County Planning Commission and the county planners developed a good ordinance with the intent of protecting our Missouri River which is the most wonderful public resource in North Dakota. These committed people spent over a year working on this ordinance which was very difficult. The Burleigh County Commissioners gutted the ordinance and passed it. It is now a useless ordinance. I fear that this will be the fate of the comprehensive plan. "

Spruce wrote on Dec 3, 2008 5:44 AM:

" I had planned to speak in support of the plan but the County Commissioners had made it very clear this meeting was only to hear new information and they would limit it to that. Reading the article and from what I've heard from those who attended, the information presented was mostly a rehash of views against the plan that had been presented in the past and even by some of the same people.

I hope the County Commissioners understand that there are many people for the plan but that a lot of them didn't attend the meeting because it was publicized as being limited to new information only. "

sam wrote on Dec 2, 2008 10:35 PM:

" to "former bismarck resident" glad you are that~ former. How about the "city folk" coming down to the rural area for fishing and boating and all of that? THat "toll" road works both ways and honestly your input has NOTHING to do with this topic "

former Bismarck resident wrote on Dec 2, 2008 9:19 PM:

" Isn't it wonderful that the 80% city dwellers in the county have agreed to continue paying taxes for the 20% "country" dwellers in the county who are simply free-loading? When I lived there I thought it would have been a good idea to set up toll booths in strategic locations so that roads would be repaired with monies collected from everyone using the roads. I also think it is appropriate to require people to pay an "employer's fee" for jobs that they have in the city in order to defray the cost to the employer who is paying taxes and providing their benefits. "

Common wrote on Dec 2, 2008 5:31 PM:

" Jonny B, you are off base with your comments. Meth Labs and Brothels are illegal, and Nuclear Waste Dumps are already regulated.

But you can't compare meth labs, brothels and nuclear dumps with someone wanting to build a house on a hill on land that they own.

Your extreme examples lessen the credibility of your statement. "

Forward wrote on Dec 2, 2008 5:00 PM:

" I'll bet every person who spoke against the plan believes in having a good plan for their business, whatever it might be. Land developers start with a good plan. Farmers and ranchers always have an operating plan. We all see what happens when planning is neglected and it isn't pretty.

Good plans protect buyers, sellers and property owners. They let buyers know what to expect in the area before they purchase property and let sellers offer assurances as to what the property can be used for. Doesn't everybody want that? Do you really want to buy property not knowing if the land next to you is going to be houses or a hazardous waste disposal site?

Peluso said "We do not want to affect any landowners' rights." Does he live somewhere where anyone can do anything they want to on their property? Living in the same city or county is about each party compromising a little for the greater good of everyone. "

rs wrote on Dec 2, 2008 1:04 PM:

" they do not want to be there~ they would rather the paychecks get mailed to them. I observed one of many meetings that they wasted worrying about salary raises! OUR MONEY THEIR RAISES~ can you believe it???? "

kk wrote on Dec 2, 2008 11:39 AM:

" attractive??? where? looks like the commissioners have ALREADY allowed chopping up of locations and trust me, if there is more property taxes to be had these "good old boys" will find away. Promises out the window.

How can they possibly plan~ they have done very little to prove any value "

Geoff wrote on Dec 2, 2008 11:23 AM:

" I watched the meeting last night. I wasn't very imprressed. The commissioners that were there didn't look like they really wanted to be there. In fact one of them, Mr. Armstrong, just sat there like a bump on a log. "

sam wrote on Dec 2, 2008 9:06 AM:

" the commissioners are frantically trying to spend as much money as they can instead of doing what they all promise when they take office. Big promises and nothing gets done. Go and watch a meeting~ a pretty pathetic state of affairs. Nobodies trying to act important and do not know what to do except spend money. "

Jonny B wrote on Dec 2, 2008 8:51 AM:

" The comprehensive plan is too comprehensive? That is why it is called a comprehensive plan. Many people in North Dakota act as if they can do anything that they want with their land. This is not true. If it were, I could have a crystal meth lab on my land as well as a brothel and a nuclear waste dump. Most progressive states have strong planning and zoning ordinances. This is nothing new and it assures that our community is a place that is desirable to live in the future. I am all for private property rights but the private property advocates have gone too far. They claim that there will be a takings violation if they can not build a multi home development on their agriculture land many miles from Bismarck. Very rarely does anyone win a takings clause law suite. As long as you can use your land in its current use, there are no takings. "

Halatbis wrote on Dec 2, 2008 8:28 AM:

" It is clear to see that the area around Bismarck/ Mandan is growing rapidly. That cannot and should not be stopped; however, there must be some controls and direction or we will get a real mess that will never get straightened out.
Land use and zoning restrictions do have an impact on property values--this works both ways--hodge-podge development has a negative impact on property values. Bismarck is a very attractive and nice city; that can be un-done by a messy sub-urban ring of bad development around it. "

Post Your Own Comment

All online comments are limited to 350 words total.
Comments are reviewed for taste, tone and language before posting.
Some comments may be used in the Tribune's print edition.
We value and respect your privacy, but The Bismarck Tribune might
disclose certain information to governmental entities if served with subpoena.