Oliver County planning board votes to deny proposed 'avoidance zone' for industrial projects

The Oliver County Planning and Zoning Commission on a motion voted to deny draft language that would have created a county "avoidance zone," a pre‑permit public‑hearing mechanism aimed at giving residents an earlier opportunity to weigh in on industrial projects.

The draft, introduced by staff as a first‑reading public hearing item, drew objections from energy company representatives and legal counsel who said it would effectively preclude willing landowners from participating in projects and might conflict with the county's existing zoning and conditional‑use procedures. "This conflicts with a landowner's right to participate in a project," said Sarah Montone of NextEra Energy, urging commissioners to "take a hard look at the language." She further noted that avoidance areas are already set in some instances by the North Dakota Public Service Commission and that landowners could be forced to petition to remove an avoidance designation.

Eric Edison, an attorney with Crowley Fleck, told the board the avoidance‑zone concept appears to be a zoning action that "requires notice, publication, and a public hearing" under North Dakota Century Code chapter 11‑33 and that the draft as written did not follow that statutory process.

Several county residents also addressed the board, emphasizing the need for public input and local protections. Marlo Bucker, an Oliver County resident, urged "any steps that ensure greater empowerment and protection of our residents," while Nancy Evanoff argued for broader public voice on issues that affect land and livelihoods.

After public comment, a commissioner moved that the board "do not approve it." Following a roll call, the motion to deny the draft avoidance‑zone language was declared approved by the commissioners present.

Why it matters: The avoidance‑zone proposal, if approved, would have created an additional procedural checkpoint before industrial permits move through the conditional‑use and building‑permit process. Supporters said it can save time by allowing an early determination; opponents, including developers and legal counsel, said it would displace established zoning procedures and could restrict landowner choice.

What happens next: Board members and staff indicated the measure is not approved and that proponents could bring revised language back later; the item will remain part of ongoing ordinance and permitting conversations in Oliver County.