A public forum provided more detail on the Burleigh County comprehensive land use plan update and collected public comments on those details, but eventually erupted into a dispute over landowner rights versus orderly development.

Cindy Gray, a member of SRF Consulting Inc., who is writing the revision of the plan, opened Thursday evening's public meeting with a presentation on growth strategies that may be used in the plan. About 80 people gathered at Wachter Middle School in Bismarck to hear the presentation and participate in a question-comment session.

Several reasons were provided for updating the 30-year-old Burleigh land use plan, including growth management, reduction of urban sprawl, protection of agricultural and recreational activities, promotion of economic activities, preservation of natural resources, ensuring consistency with other planning processes, providing for public faculties and services, and preserving historic, cultural and archaeological resources.

"Plans do get out of date as a community grows," Gray said. "The old plan addresses areas that have already been developed. Issues change."

Much of the focus of the plan will be to manage growth, reduce urban sprawl and maintain the feasibility of agricultural activities.

Bismarck encompasses an area of about 36 square miles and has an average density of about 3.2 people per acre. At current growth rates, there will be 11 more miles of development by 2030. Burleigh County, not including Bismarck, has a density of less than one person per acre (.9), but at the rate it is growing, 38 square miles will be newly developed by 2030, an area greater than Bismarck now takes up.

Uncontrolled management of county development is expected to result in urban sprawl and leapfrog development. These put additional pressure and costs on the county to provide utilities, emergency services and transportation routes. They also impact farming activities and other natural resources.

Studies show that costs of providing services to residential areas out in the country costs more than the county collects in revenues from the developments. For every $1 collected in revenues, such as taxes, it costs from $1.05 to $2 to provide services.

"The cost of building infrastructure for new remote developments is ultimately subsidized by the whole county," Gray said. "Sprawling developments often require more fire, police and ambulance stations per capita to achieve acceptable response times."

Gray is identifying Bismarck, Regan, Wilton and Wing as community growth areas, being able to provide utilities and services to residential areas built in their vicinities.

She further identified crossroad communities to include Menoken, Sterling and Driscoll. Rural business areas include Menoken, McKenzie and Sterling. Baldwin and Moffit were identified as rural neighborhoods.

They all allow for residential development, having established themselves with some manner of households, utilities, transportation routes and emergency services.

While the plan will encourage residential development near the growth centers, there are some alternatives for providing residential development in the country. Gray provided some examples of growth management plans for residential development including:

n Conservation design: Half or more of a developable tract would be designated as undevelopable permanently. The goal is to preserve agricultural land and open spaces.

n Cluster development: This is an alternative for nonfarm residences on ag-zoned land. The county allows one nonfarm dwelling on 40 acres of ag land. Through cluster development, a 320-acre tract could allow eight lots with a maximum size of one acre built in close proximity to one another. There would be restrictions on the development of the remaining acreage.

Other proposed zoning and subdivision regulations include the requirement of covenants acknowledging the presence of ag activities; requiring that arterial and collector roadways be paved at the cost of the developer, along with streets in the subdivision; regulations for corridor preservation and right-of-way dedication; and rural nonfarm developments would have to hook up to rural water services.

The comprehensive plan also considers riverfront development with protection of river access and bluff line visuals.

John Spitzer, a member of the Ecklund township board, questioned the statistics Gray used, and was critical of how she presented the information because no interjection was allowed during the presentation.

"People don't want to live next to each other; we're not all ants and we don't have to live in the same pile," Spitzer said. "Some people need to live in open areas."

Jake Spitzer, who has often been at odds with the county over his proposed subdivision south of Wilton, said Gray was painting a bleak picture and that only the rich will be able to live in the country.

"When the people living on 40 acres retire, their retirement is often based on the sale of their land, and they'll try to sell it for the best money they can get. If you deny them that, we've got a problem," Jake Spitzer said.

John Spitzer said Bismarck should not be allowed to control areas outside its corporate limits. He and several others voiced their concerns that land rights were being taken from the property owners.

Charles Manders, a private planner, said that 85 percent of the population and taxes come from Bismarck.

"If any property rights are being taken away, it's the residents of Bismarck. Fourteen percent of my taxes go to Burleigh County. If there is concern, it should be on the behalf of the city," Manders said.

The Burleigh County Association of Township Officers is on record as opposing the cluster method. Gray said it wasn't being forced on anyone and was only an alterative growth management method.

Gray said that zoning and planning were created to protect people's investment in property.

"In a growing community a certain number of households will be developed. It's important to have a variety of properties available at varying levels of affordability," Gray said. "Yes, housing is important, but it's more a matter of how it's done, how much land is consumed."

Gray added that in some counties in other parts of the country, there is a sliding scale of cost: That those wanting to live in rural areas have to pay their own way for the additional costs associated with their location. She is planning on discussing this issue with the Burleigh County engineer to see if it could be applied here.

Burleigh County Commissioner Mark Armstrong said there will be other opportunities for the public to comment on the comprehensive plan.

Gray expects to have a draft of the plan completed in January, at which time it will be brought to the Burleigh County Planning Commission, Bismarck Planning Commission and Burleigh County Commission, all of which will hold public hearings on the plan.

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