Most notable for its name, drawn from its proximity to the Y-shaped junction of the Talkeetna Spur Road and the Parks Highway, the rural community is generally quiet. But in recent months, it's been engulfed by a dispute that pits neighbors against neighbors.

A split over a proposed plan that would regulate growth in the area drives much of the unrest. But the issue at hand -- the one unresolved after two months -- is the validity of a recent community council election.

The election is key to both sides because, if upheld, it would tip the balance on the board from one generally in favor of the comprehensive plan as written to one generally opposed.

Residents cast votes Nov. 3 for four of the seven council seats. The results were certified but before the new members could be seated, the existing board met Nov. 18 and declared the election invalid. It voted 4-2 to hold a new election in February.

Those in favor of a new election said they had to act because of inappropriate behavior during the election, including threats to candidates.

"There was sinister, mean, nasty stuff that changed the outcome of the election, and we don't feel we should stand for it," said Tom Kluberton, a 53-year-old Talkeetna-area inn owner and two-year council member.

Opponents say the council lacked the grounds to order a new election. None of the alleged behavior merited another vote, which would violate state and borough election laws, they say.

"None of the things that was done affected the outcome of the election except some people had some disagreements over who is going to run for what office. This is little, petty stuff like first and second grade in school," said Jim Skinner, a retired U.S. Army sergeant and a council member. He cast one of the two votes against redoing the election.

So far, neither side has been willing to budge, which has led to some heated confrontations.

At a recent board meeting, both sides tried to stake their claim to the council table with the "new" council members taking a seat next to current council members while supporters of the election results shouted: "Seat the board. Seat the board."

The "new" council members eventually gave way, by getting up and leaving, according to witnesses on both sides.

The dispute has left the community in a quandary. Residents can't agree who is in charge, and they can't find any higher authority to resolve the dispute.

Both borough and state officials have declined to get involved.

Borough Attorney Teresa Williams told Matanuska-Susitna Borough Assembly members last week the councils are generally considered self-governing bodies.

A state official with the Division of Community Advocacy, responding to an inquiry from Skinner, recommended the election be validated, with the caveat that the opinion was based on contact with three community members and "may or may not be complete."

Sorting out the competing claims is difficult.

The residents disagree on what, if any, misdeeds occurred, whether they were serious enough to merit a new election, and whether the current board has the authority to set up a new election. They also disagree on what, if any, state or borough laws apply to the community council.

Skinner says the council is subject to state election laws, including one that requires that problems be reported within 10 days of the election certification to the municipal clerk. He also thinks the council violated open meeting laws at its Nov. 18 meeting because the agenda only mentioned investigating possible tampering with the election, not invalidating the results.

Council president Steve Heinrich said he doesn't know what laws apply. The council is one step above a high school student council, he said. Members did what they thought was right, he said.

"We looked at these things, and it didn't pass the smell test," he said.

Skinner, however, said that if it disregards election laws, nothing prevents the council from invalidating an election because it doesn't like the results.

"We live in a democracy, not an anarchy," he said.

If council members have concerns about the election, they should investigate the claims, but not undo the results, he said.

About the only thing both sides agree on is the latest election attracted much more interest than past elections because of the pending comprehensive plan.

In the November election, 101 voted, compared with 23 who voted in a 2004 community council election. Much of the interest came from people who felt the plan went too far in limiting how people could develop their property. The plan is currently on hold.

Skinner said he's still hoping the borough will step in, and late last week filed a complaint with the borough clerk charging that the upcoming February election is illegal.

Denise Chappel, a former board member and a leader of the effort to reinstate the November election results, said she suspects the issue might end up in court.

In the meantime, the current council is moving forward with plans for a new election in February, Kluberton said.

Reporter S.J. Komarnitsky can be reached at skomarnitsky@adn.com or 352-6714.