Members of the Clayton Planning and Zoning Advisory Board spent the bulk of their meeting reviewing zoning code issues, a possible rewrite of the town’s Unified Development Ordinance and a citizen petition that could lead to a merger of the town and Liberty Township.

Board members discussed technical fixes to the town’s zoning text, including a proposal to prohibit concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) within the town’s agricultural zone. The board also examined a proposed consolidation of two residential districts, R‑1 and R‑4, noting those zones are similar in lot width and primary structure standards; one member said Clayton currently has no properties zoned R‑1 and only one property in R‑4, and recommended merging the two and then renumbering remaining residential districts as part of the cleanup.

The board reviewed its rules and procedures for the Planning Commission and the Board of Zoning Appeals, noting those procedures were renewed the prior year and that state law and precedent underscore the importance of following adopted rules. A member cited recent court decisions in other municipalities where annexations or zoning actions were overturned because the local body did not follow statutorily required procedures, and the board emphasized that any local changes should align with the town’s comprehensive plan.

Several speakers identified technical errors in the existing UDO that need correction, including a provision that incorrectly states all properties must be connected to city water — a requirement the board said cannot be enforced because the town lacks that water service in all areas. To accelerate revisions, a board member proposed budgeting $25,000 to hire Mary Strother, an AICP‑certified planner (listed in the meeting as a consultant), to produce a revised UDO tied to Clayton’s recently adopted comprehensive plan. Members discussed using a technical advisory committee of construction and utilities professionals to review technical sections before formal adoption.

The board also received information about a petition filed by a registered voter in Liberty Township under Indiana Code 36‑1.5 (often described as a “government modernization” or township‑incorporation process). If petitioners gather verified signatures equal to 5% of registered township voters (the board discussed an estimate of about 238 signatures based on local voter rolls), the petition would be certified to the town treasurer, the county voter registration office and the secretary of state. The town would then have three formal response options: adopt a resolution rejecting the petition, adopt a resolution accepting it and begin planning logistics for reorganization, or prepare its own plan to restructure local government with other political subdivisions. Board members noted that if the petition ultimately led to incorporation of the township, the town’s jurisdiction and responsibilities could expand dramatically (participants estimated a jump from roughly 990 residents to about 7,000), creating substantial infrastructure and service requirements, including roads, drainage, septic inspection, water and potentially police services.

Board members did not take final votes on zoning code amendments, the UDO rewrite or any response to the petition at this meeting. They agreed to continue drafting text changes and to present the proposed UDO revisions — and the requested budget for planner services — at future meetings for formal consideration.

The meeting closed with routine calendar items and an adjournment.