Clayton planning commissioners opened a multi-topic review of the town's Unified Development Ordinance at their July meeting, focusing on lot-size and setback standards, inconsistent land‑use language and mismatched road classifications tied to Indiana Department of Transportation guidance.

The discussion centered on whether existing standards reflect conditions in Clayton and whether the UDO implements the town's comprehensive plan. Commissioners noted several specific inconsistencies: an R‑1 minimum lot size listed as one acre (43,560 square feet), references to "ground floor area" versus "primary structure floor area," and setback and road‑classification terms that do not match local conditions.

"We don't have any lots that are that size right now," a commission member said when reviewing the R‑1 acreage requirement, arguing the standard is unrealistic for the town. Commissioners also noted that a 30‑foot front‑yard setback for an R‑3 district could make common elements such as porches, stairs or ADA ramps noncompliant if applied without clarification.

Why it matters: the UDO is the primary implementing document for Clayton's comprehensive plan, and commissioners said changes could affect whether routine building permits are approvable without variances. The group emphasized changes must continue to protect "health, safety and welfare," citing fire access, sight lines for driveways and utility easements as reasons setbacks exist.

Key points and next steps
- Terminology and numeric standards: Commissioners asked staff to standardize language across district standards so measurements refer to the same concept (for example, specifying "minimum ground‑floor area" rather than alternating with "primary structure floor area").
- Setbacks and nonconforming structures: members reiterated that existing buildings would remain conforming/nonconforming ("grandfathered") but noted additions or new construction would need to meet revised standards or pursue a use variance.
- Road classifications: staff said Clayton does not contain principal or secondary arterials per INDOT functional classification; most town streets are local roads, with State Road 39 classified as a major collector. Commissioners suggested removing or revising UDO classifications that do not match INDOT categories.
- Visual aids: the commission discussed adding explanatory diagrams to each district page (setbacks, maximum height, side‑yard requirements) so property owners can quickly see applicable standards.
- Homework and public process: commissioners will mark up printed pages of district use regulations and return suggested edits next month. Staff and the chair will prepare revised language and diagrams for further review; the group also discussed forming a technical advisory committee of outside professionals to consult on complex permit requests.

No formal ordinances were adopted at the meeting. Commissioners instructed staff to collect members' edits and to return the UDO sections for further consideration at a future meeting.

"When we think about changes to this, we have to keep health, safety and welfare in mind," the chair said, urging careful drafting to avoid unintended consequences.

Additional details discussed included whether ramps and stairs count toward setback calculations (commissioners cited building‑code guidance that stair structures are typically counted in setback calculations) and whether the town should retain uncommon classifications such as "subdivision road" that do not appear in INDOT guidance.

The commission agreed to table final decisions, collect member comments and reconvene on the UDO amendments at the next monthly meeting. Staff was asked to circulate marked‑up copies and to prepare draft diagrams and proposed wording changes.