Two years of work on a draft Burleigh County Comprehensive Land Use plan were tossed Monday as the county board rejected two separate amendments. It is now back to the original plan that has not been updated for nearly 30 y ears.

The last revisions on Burleigh County's Comprehensive Land Use plan were made in the early 1980s.

Commissioner Mark Armstrong opened the discussion with a proposal for the plan's vision statement that he hoped would soothe 23 months of contention. Disputes have focused on the perceived loss of landowners' rights, slowing of economic development and the plan's restrictiveness.

Armstrong's amendment stressed the comprehensive plan would be used as a tool to help guide future growth and it was a flexible document that was expected to be changed.

"When opportunities arise for economic development and prosperity that will enhance the tax base, we support these projects moving forward," Armstrong said. "We also support the rights of property owners to develop their property within the outlines adopted through the planning process.

"The comprehensive may be amended because public values and priorities related to growth and development may change over time, or new proposals are made for better developments or more appropriate uses never contemplated in the original comprehensive plan."

He said amendmendments could be initiated by the county, property owners, developers, residents and other interested parties.

Commissioner Doug Schnonert followed with his own amendment requiring the commission to study the economic impacts of the plan before approving it. He requested a five-member board assist the county in the study if it would value or devalue the affected property. The board rejected that 4-1.

"I'm in favor of taking the old plan and using some of this," Schonert said. "That's what we were looking for, an update.

"I cannot be in favor of this plan because it is way too detailed, way too comprehensive and it's too non-growth".

After Schonert's amendment failed, Armstrong's proposal fell with a 3-2 vote. Commissioner Jerry Woodcox and Armstrong gave voted in its favor.

"I am disappointed. I think we went through two years of hard work, hundreds of people involved and we had public hearings and public hearings," Woodcox said after the meeting. "I think we went back at least a year or two. I think it's going to be expensive to go forward. We wasted a lot of tax payers' money."

Woodcox said Armstrong's amendment would have been a start to needed changes.

"Certainly, it expressed our intent on what the plan was going to do. This plan is not an anti-expansion plan of any kind," Woodcox said.

Commissioner Brian Bitner, who was only seated in December, said the changes in the draft document were unclear to him, particularly since he did not have the most recent draft.

"We were not voting on the actual plan that was in print. I haven't seen it in writing what we were voting for," he said. "I thought I had an updated copy, but apparently there were changes made that were not in my copy. I cannot vote for something that is not in front of me."

Bitner added he was concerned what this would do to people's property taxes and property rights. "I am concerned about the long-term effects of things we haven't looked into yet," he said.

"Too many restrictions take away the rights of the people," said Jake Spitzer, an observer. "I think this is a huge step in the right direction. I never was for changing the entire comprehensive plan. The old one was OK, but does it does need some work. … A subdivision 30 years ago is a subdivision today. They serve the same purpose. … What we don't want is control over everybody."

"I would like to see us take the good points out of this and then go back to our old plan," Schonert said.

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