The most pressing topic of the meeting was the comprehensive update on the Fargo-Moorhead diversion project delivered by Eric Dods from the consulting firm A2S. This project aims to mitigate flood risks in the Fargo-Moorhead area. Dods reported that the project is approximately 61% complete, with the diversion channel work at 56%, the federal southern embankment at 68%, and the in-town levee works in Fargo and Moorhead about 80% complete. He highlighted that 28 million cubic yards of excavation material have been removed from the diversion channel, signaling progress toward the 40 million cubic yard goal. Additionally, 3,500 trees have been planted as part of the project’s environmental considerations.

Dods emphasized the importance of the southern embankment, which spans approximately 22 miles and includes three main control structures, as crucial for Clay County. He noted that construction segments in Minnesota had started but paused for winter. In terms of property acquisition, Dods mentioned that the project is nearing 100% completion in securing property rights within the construction footprint, though a few eminent domain parcels remain under valuation disputes.

A significant aspect of the discussion was the Property Rights Acquisition and Mitigation Plan (PRAM), which outlines land acquisitions and impact mitigation strategies for affected property owners. Dods revealed that the DNR and its North Dakota counterpart are reviewing the latest PRAM version to ensure regulatory compliance. Among the DNR’s recommendations was a call for local governments to restrict development within a quarter-mile of the dam and along river channels. Although the Diversion Authority lacks enforcement power, these recommendations were communicated to local officials, including those from Clay County.

The board members raised questions regarding zoning restrictions and property acquisitions, particularly concerning residential structures near the embankment. Dods clarified that property rights were acquired within the construction footprint and easements on the wet side, which allowed some existing structures to remain within the quarter-mile buffer.

Moving to land development policies, the commissioners discussed zoning regulations related to dam safety and land development, particularly the development of solar panel arrays near the dam. A developer expressed interest in constructing a solar farm in Wilin County, south of the county line. The county coordinated with the developer to ensure solar panels and control boxes would be elevated against flooding risks. The board also deliberated on the necessity of additional county zoning regulations on the wet side of the dam, with existing flowage easements in Clay County classified as Zone One, prohibiting any development or structures.

The meeting proceeded with a hearing on revisions to the Clay County Land Development Ordinance. Updated chapters focused on the ordinance’s purpose, development definitions, non-conformities, and zoning district establishment. The state is expected to review flood hazard and shoreland ordinances, which have been amended to align with state regulations. Interim use permits for accessory dwelling units were also modified.

A discussion unfolded around development standards, particularly removing the provision for lot setback averaging. This provision allowed property owners to base setbacks on neighboring properties’ average distances, but concerns were raised about perpetuating non-conformities. Additionally, the proposal of a minimum lot area of one acre for highway commercial districts was debated, with concerns about complicating developments like shop condos. Suggestions were made to exempt such developments from the minimum lot size requirement.

Sign regulation changes were another focal point, aligning with First Amendment rights by not regulating sign content, though prohibiting certain signs like those resembling traffic signs. The proposal to change sign setbacks to a minimum of 10 feet from public roads was made to improve visibility.

Furthermore, the meeting addressed the proposal for administrative penalties for zoning violations, including a “three strikes” rule for compliance. The proposal aimed to establish a structured enforcement approach, balancing enforcement with compliance opportunities. Board members considered whether penalties should follow a strict schedule or be negotiable, acknowledging the need for legal consultation to ensure regulations are sound.