sBy GORDON WEIXEL

Bismarck Tribune

The Burleigh County Planning Commission threw down a gauntlet of sorts in approving a motion to continue a hearing on the plat for the proposed Sundown Acres 2nd subdivision.

At its last meeting, the Burleigh County Commission, on the advice of Cynthia Feland, of the state's attorney's office, told the planners to approve or disapprove the Clairmont Properties, LLLP plat request. Further continuation would be considered planning commission approval of the plat by the county commission, the planners were told.

Sundown Acres 2nd is a proposed 42-acre development with 16 lots and one block located about 13 miles from downtown Bismarck on the western banks of the Missouri. City planning department staffer Greg Greenquist said that a revision to the plat had been added Wednesday, providing a second access road to the development. Despite the revision, the planning department continued to recommend denial of the plat, which it has maintained is contrary to the county's comprehensive plan.

With the reopening of the public hearing, Alexis Duxbury told commissioners she heard that an agreement involving the developer, residents of Sundown Acres 1st and the county had been developed in an effort to get the homeowners in Sundown 1st to support the new development. Duxbury asked the planners to table further action so she could review the agreement.

Larry Spears, a resident of Sundown 1st, confirmed there was an agreement. His concerns were what the costs would be to pave 149th Street - the main road through Sundown 1st - and whether an adjacent landowner could force the entire road to be moved since it was on private property rather than the section line as it should be.

"The agreement involves a complex formula for funding, which includes county funding, neighbor funding and developer funding," Spears said.

Planning commission Chairman Chuck Peterson said the commission had heard of the agreement, but it had not seen it or heard the specifics. Dave Patience, representing the developer, pointed out that the agreement was outlined in the last minutes of the planning commission.

Planning Commissioner Gary Maher asked what portion of paving 149th the county was willing to pay for. County Commissioner Doug Schonert, also a member of the planning commission, said that it is the county's policy to pay 40 percent of the paving. This would not include other construction fees should the road have to be moved to the section line, he said.

City Commissioner Steve Schwab, also a planning commissioner, said that he believed there were too many unanswered questions. He asked that the plat request be continued, adding the language that the county commission should not consider the motion either a delaying tactic or approval of the plat. The motion was seconded by Maher.

"When you say this is not a tactic to continue, I disagree," Schonert said. "This came to the board a year and a half ago and every time you keep asking for something else. I take this as another tactic to delay. I don't think you can continue it; the state's attorney made it clear. You're playing with these people, and you can't do that. You have to move one way or another."

Schonert said that the planners weren't in a position to declare a moratorium on development either, waiting for the comprehensive land use plan to be updated. He said that the planning department had been charged to write a request for proposal to update the comprehensive plan but had yet to do so.

"The developer had this before us a year and a half ago. He pulled it for six to eight months to see what would happen with the comprehensive plan, but nothing did, so he brought it back," Schonert said. "My feeling is this is another delay tactic and you should be careful in doing that."

Peterson said that the issue should be continued until the questions were answered, and he asked Schonert how another month's delay would impact the developer financially. Schonert said that there was likely no financial impact. But he asked why should the planners be allowed to drag out the process?

"This deserves a little more time for the public interest," Maher said. "I don't think it has all been totally covered yet. It's in the best interest of the county to maybe continue this."

Bismarck mayor and planning commission member John Warford agreed with Maher.

"There are still many questions out there. Many have been answered," Warford said. "As public officials, we have the responsibility to turn over all the stones. That's what we're here for."

Warford said that he was troubled by those accusing the planning commission of dragging its feet and attempting to force an up or down vote before all its questions were answered.

"I agree," Schwab said. "If the commission is not allowed to do its job, it's an absolute waste of time. Government is to serve the people. If the county commission disagrees, it can take a vote or do whatever it wants. We've done our best."

The motion to continue passed on a 5-to-3 vote.

(Reach reporter Gordon Weixel at 250-8255 or gordon.weixel@;bismarcktribune.com.)