The debate over donated road right-of-way flared again Tuesday during the Ward County Commission’s approval of a new comprehensive plan and ordinance amendments.

Commissioners John Pietsch and John Fjeldahl found themselves out-numbered in taking a stand against right-of-way donation and dedication, although the commission did approve relaxing the rules on first reading of a revised ordinance. A public hearing and second reading remain.

Planning and zoning administrator Nancy Simpson called the ordinance revisions “a stopgap measure in between now and our new zoning ordinances that will be discussed in the coming months.”

The county’s existing ordinance requires land donations in excess of the 33 feet on each side of the road center line that is set in state law for section lines. A required donation of 75 feet applies to county and township roads when development plats are approved.

“The reason this portion of the ordinance is here today is to address a copious amount of variances, and when you have too many variances to a specific ordinance, that means the ordinance needs to be fixed,” Simpson said. “There’s a lot of extra acreage being dedicated that wasn’t necessary.

“The recommendation is that we remove the requirement for right-of-way dedication on township roads and undeveloped section lines. Essentially, if there is a section line road that is not a county road, only the 33-foot statutory right of way would be there. There’d be no additional right of way required in that instance,” she said.

However, roads not on section lines would require a donation of 75 feet on each side of the center line when plats for development are approved.

“If it’s deviating from the section line, then you’re on private property, so there would need to be provisions for right away to ensure access,” Simpson said.

County Engineer Dana Larsen explained the extra right of way is needed to accommodate road construction. Fjeldahl replied roads can be built with construction easements rather than donations, or the right of way can be purchased from the landowner.

“This doesn’t address the personal property rights that I think this infringes on,” he said of the ordinance revisions.

Pietsch offered an ordinance amendment to say that the policy of the past was wrong and that landowners who previously donated land for their approved plats have the right to request their properties back.

State’s Attorney Rozanna Larson advised the commission not to pass the amendment, given the ongoing lawsuit brought by the Ward County Farm Bureau and Ward County Farmers Union against the county over the right-of-way donation ordinance. Pietsch is plaintiff in the lawsuit.

“You do not put admissions into a motion. Absolutely not. Not when there’s pending litigation,” Larson said.

“Even when you know you’re wrong? You can’t do it?” Fjeldahl asked. “I believe we are wrong.”

Chairwoman Shelly Weppler questioned whether Pietsch can speak on the topic if he is involved in litigation against the county. Larson responded he can act on the ordinances as a commissioner, but his amendment crosses over the line.

“You are trying to make the commission pass an ordinance that supports and wins your litigation. That is not appropriate, at all,” Larson told Pietsch. However, she added, the motion was made so must be voted on and should be defeated.

“I’m merely trying to correct something that hasn’t been right for many years,” Pietsch said.

“That’s your opinion,” Commissioner Alan Walter responded. “That’s not the opinion across the state.”

Weppler eventually banged the gavel to state, “This is not the boxing ring here. We have a serious issue at hand, and we aren’t going to argue it back and forth. You’re going to make your points, state your position, and then we will continue on.”

The vote was 2-3, with Weppler, Walter and Jim Rostad voting against the amendment, and Fjeldahl and Pietsch voting for it. Votes fell along the same lines in the 3-2 passage of the ordinance revisions as proposed.

Simpson pointed out the comprehensive plan includes language allowing the county flexibility to create ordinances that limit the 75-foot requirement to larger developments and exclude large plats that may have only a single residence.

The commission also voted to repeal its 18-page generic plan from 1994 and adopt the comprehensive plan that has been developed over the past year and a half with the assistance of consultant KLJ.

Commissioners supported a policy that any future amendments to the comprehensive plan proposed by the planning and zoning commission receive final approval from the county commission. The planning and zoning commission would need to adopt the policy into its bylaws, but the commission will weigh in on the language being adopted.

Commissioner John Pietsch cast the only vote against the comprehensive plan, saying it includes reference to a transportation plan that still is a few months away from completion.

“It would be kind of hard for me to vote for this document without that plan already in place because it looks like the two bridge back and forth with each other quite a bit,” Pietsch said.

Simpson said the comprehensive plan refers to the transportation plan only to state that a review of the ordinance should consider the information in the transportation plan.

Fjeldahl said there is concern about how the two plans will fit together, but the ability to amend the comprehensive plan should allow any differences to be corrected. The purpose of a comprehensive plan is to guide the drafting of ordinances.

The commission also accepted the resignation of Simpson, effective Sept. 20, and will begin an immediate search for a new planning and zoning administrator.