A highly debated draft of the Burleigh County comprehensive land use plan returns to the table at 5 p.m. Monday during a public hearing before the county commission.

The commission will sift through its issues in December in hopes that a final plan can be approved in January. Its draft has been a work in progress for more than 21 months.

The aim of the plan is to grow Burleigh County in a sensible, feasible way. It factors in the needs of townships, rural subdivisions, agriculture, industrial development, retail development, emergency response time, transportation and the environment.

The plan was completed by the consultant firm SRF of Fargo.

A study in the plan indicated 80 percent of Burleigh County residents live in Bismarck.

How the rest of the county branches out will be guided by the plan.

County officials specify these are only outlines for future ordinances for the county.

According to the 2000 census, 69,416 people make Burleigh County home. It is projected the population will be 79,364 in 2010 and 89,311 in 2020.

Concerns have been repeatedly aired by those drafting the plan about urban sprawl.

"It is my opinion that their objections can be traced to one issue. The plan encourages growth to occur near existing communities. In other words, the plan discourages a haphazard pattern of scattered, leapfrog development," said chairman of the Planning and Zoning Committee Chuck Peterson.

County officials believe subdivisions and non-farm homes near existing services could more easily be attached to existing infrastructure without interruption and less cost.

"Although sprawl containment policies are a standard practice among local jurisdictions across the country, it does mean that not everybody should break up their farmland into residential lots and sell them off," he said. According to Peterson, a handful of people believe their potential profits are being threatened by this plan.

Commissioner Doug Schnonert opposes the vision statement in the plan. It encourages residential and commercial growth into or adjacent to established cities and communities where public water and sewer services are available and agriculture and natural resources will be protected from random, isolated non-farm developments.

"If this vision statement is approved as stated, we will have no growth policy anywhere beyond the city's extraterritorial jurisdiction," Schonert wrote.

Instead, he suggested the vision statement read: "In Burleigh County, residential and commercial growth is encouraged primarily where public water is available and the protection of agricultural and natural resources will be considered."

Others find the language too restrictive and not in touch with rural residents' needs.

"It states 'you will do this' or 'you shall do that.' It's way too dictorial. We want the language softened," said Neil Modin, chairman of the Burleigh County Township Officers Association.

The plan says developers of future subdivisions must put in a water line to meet city code if they are in the four-mile jurisdictional area.

Modin said his subdivision typically uses 2-inch water lines. Under city code, they would have to be 6-inch pipelines.

"The cost to do that would be so prohibitive, it wouldn't be feasible," he said.

Modin said committees involved in the plan were low in rural representation.

Commissioner Mark Armstrong said the wording in the plan was softened to say something "may happen."

He urges everyone to read the entire document thoroughly.

"None of the commissioners that I know of would support taking anyone's rights away," said Armstrong. "I think we all agree that there must be an orderly process to how subdivisions are approved.

"This is a pro-development plan for our county."

Armstrong said he would remain open to suggestions on Monday.

In the plan's rural value section, Schonert also discouraged statements about:

n Working toward solutions that would reduce the use of 40-acre tracts for non-farm residential purposes, thereby taking the acreage out of agricultural production. "Maybe we should consider the development of 10- and 20-acre tracts, rather than restricting a single family residence to one per 40-acre tract," he said.

n Limiting the scale of development that does not directly relate to the agricultural way of life and encouraging such growth adjacent to rural centers or urban centers.

He disagreed that subdivision requirements should clearly state that hooking up to public water supply is a requirement for subdivisions that include more than four residential lots or more than one non-residential lot.

"Water quality is subject to state regulations, and if they meet state regulatory standards, wells should be permitted," Schonert said. "This is a no-growth statement."

He questioned the county considering a provision that requires developers to pave access roads to a subdivision. Schonert said cost should be considered. "We may not want to make it a requirement," he said.

Schonert opposed another item that asks that the bluff line closest to the river be protected from structures being placed on top of the bluff.

"This would adversely affect the landowner, only to protect the visual beautification of others. It is not fair to the property owner," he said.

The Burleigh County Comprehensive plan can be reviewed at www.burleighcountycompplan.com.

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