Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council deadlocks on Bucking/Buckingham Iron Business Park plat after developer disputes water‑line recommendation
Summary
The council failed to approve the final plat for the Bucking Iron Business Park after a 3–3 tie. Applicant Eric Mansell opposed staff recommendations that the subdivider extend an 8‑inch water main roughly 2,700 feet, citing an estimated $600,000 cost and arguing utilities would be better provided if the city brought the trunk line later.
The Sheridan City Council on Jan. 5 debated and ultimately deadlocked on a final plat for the Bucking (Buckingham) Iron Business Park, a proposed six‑lot, 20‑acre industrial subdivision just south of city limits. The vote ended in a tie and the council tabled final action until a full seven‑member council is available.
City Planner Kelly Schroeder reviewed the county subdivision (in the city’s one‑mile joint planning area) and told council staff’s recommended comments to the county: that water infrastructure be extended to the subdivision per city design standards (the slide language was changed from a mandatory "shall" to a recommendation), that centralized sewer is not proximate so a decentralized system is acceptable, and that Buckingham Iron Circle be paved to a rural standard.
Applicant Eric Mansell, who identified himself as the owner, urged the council to withdraw the water‑extension recommendation. Mansell said the developer’s estimates to pave the road and extend city water were “around $600,000 in total,” which he described as an unreasonable burden for six industrial lots (most proposed for storage). Mansell argued that a prior utilities review and a utilities‑director letter dated April 18, 2024, indicated there were no current plans to provide city utilities to the property.
Mansell warned that if the city’s recommendation effectively required him to bring the water main that far, he would be forced to lease rather than sell lots; leasing would, he said, allow up to 10 buildings under county rules and shift maintenance burdens. Other speakers and councilors argued the city’s memorandum of understanding with the county and city standards exist to manage growth, support fire protection and public safety, and avoid setting a precedent of weakening standards in the joint planning area.
Council debate focused on fairness and precedent. One councilor noted that requiring a subdivider to pay for an 8‑inch trunk line that the city may eventually own (after future annexation) effectively asks the private developer to fund infrastructure from which the city could later benefit. Another councilor argued that water availability matters for fire protection, pointing to low well yields (9–11 gpm) in the area and saying city trunk lines support responsible planned growth. The city attorney advised the governing body that to depart from standards it would be appropriate to document a specific case‑by‑case finding of undue hardship.
A councilor proposed an amendment removing the recommendation(s) about water extension and paving; that amendment resulted in a 3–3 tie and failed. The main motion to approve the final plat likewise failed on a 3–3 tie. Councilmembers said they will bring the item back when more members are present and requested additional clarification from staff on the practical differences between allowing leasing versus full subdivision approval.
Next steps: The final plat will return to a future council meeting when the council is fully seated; staff and legal advised that any deviation from city standards should include explicit findings (for example, undue hardship) to avoid setting a broad precedent.
