Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Udo topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission flags UDO language and reiterates town services as annexation incentive
Summary
Commissioners reviewed sections of the Unified Development Ordinance that they say contain outdated or unclear rules—including a 25% accessory‑structure business limit, daycare restrictions in the business district, and multiple residential classifications—and emphasized the town’s streamlined permitting process as an annexation attraction.
The Town of Clayton Planning Commission spent substantial time reviewing possible updates to the town’s Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) and discussing the services Clayton offers to properties considering annexation.
Commission members described several UDO provisions that they consider inconsistent or difficult to enforce. Meeting participants repeatedly questioned a provision that limits accessory structures to 25% of their square footage for use as business space; commissioners called the language “confusing” and said they intend to propose removing or revising it. The transcript records one member saying, “I don’t know why that language is in there” and asking whether staff could remove it when revising the UDO.
The commission also reviewed language that currently prohibits daycares in the town business district and distinguishes “nursing home” from “assisted living” in ways members said appear outdated. Commissioners said these and similar provisions likely stem from older, copied ordinance language and merit closer review by staff and the town’s planning consultant.
Another recurring item was residential zoning classifications: the UDO contains R‑1 through R‑5 zones, and commissioners questioned whether all five categories remain necessary given local development patterns. They discussed whether R‑2 or R‑3 categories could be consolidated after comparing current lot‑size needs and recent approvals.
Variances and precedents
Commissioners discussed a local developer’s recent use of variances to build narrower lot configurations than the UDO’s stated minimum width (90 feet). Members acknowledged that past variances — granted one property at a time — improved blighted or dilapidated sites but expressed concern about establishing a precedent for denser development without explicit policy changes.
One commissioner said planners they consulted believed the town could lawfully deny a future variance based on the merits of that application, but members agreed the UDO and comprehensive plan should clarify the town’s expectations for acceptable growth.
Town services and annexation
During a separate but related conversation, commissioners outlined services Clayton provides that could make annexation attractive to nearby property owners. Speakers noted the town operates its own snowplow and maintenance crew, has successfully used Community Crossing matching grants to repair streets and sidewalks in multiple years since 2018, and maintains a streamlined local permitting process through its Planning Commission and Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA).
The commission noted that the BZA did not meet because it lacked a quorum; several members said the town wants to recruit additional civilian appointees to the five‑member BZA so that variance and appeals applications can be heard.
Meeting minutes and procedural actions
At the start of the Planning Commission portion of the meeting a member moved to approve the minutes for January and February; another member seconded the motion and the minutes were recorded as passed (transcript: “All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed? Okay. Meeting minutes for January and February pass.”). The transcript did not include a roll‑call tally by name.
Why it matters
Commissioners said clarifying or removing outdated UDO language will reduce uncertainty for property owners and developers and help the town enforce design expectations set out in its comprehensive plan. The planning commission also framed the town’s more approachable permitting process as a municipal service that differentiates Clayton from larger nearby municipalities.
Next steps
Staff (Pete and the planning consultant, Mary Strother of Banning/American StructurePoint as referenced in the meeting) will continue to review UDO language and propose edits for the commission’s consideration. Commissioners asked staff to assemble proposed changes, including recommended deletions (for example, the 25% accessory‑structure business limit) and any suggested consolidation of residential zone categories, for discussion at a future meeting.
Ending
The commission closed with a suggested vision statement for the town’s future and with outreach plans to recruit additional BZA members; staff will circulate copies of the comprehensive plan and follow up on UDO edits.
