Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Development Code topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Clay County planning staff previews multi‑chapter Land Development Code rewrite; chapters 5–8 to be reviewed
Summary
Planning staff told the Clay County Board the county is reviewing a multi‑chapter rewrite of its Land Development Code and that chapters 5–8 would be considered next, with some sections needing state review.
Planning staff told the board the county is updating its Land Development Code, a project the staff said began with a comprehensive review culminating in a substantial 2012 overhaul and multiple subsequent amendments.
Matt, planning staff, said the Planning Commission reviewed draft chapters 1–4 in December and would review chapters 5–8 in the current cycle. He summarized the subject matter for the upcoming chapters: general development standards (area, dimensional setbacks, access, fencing, parking, signs, trees), subdivision regulations, administration and procedures (roles of the board of commissioners, Board of Adjustment, Planning Commission; procedures for variances, use permits and map/text amendments), enforcement and definitions.
Staff said certain components — shoreland, floodplain and feedlot provisions — will require state review because they must align with state rules. Matt told the board the draft language for those sections had been adjusted to better match Minnesota statute and administrative rules and that he did not anticipate substantial state comments because the draft was intended to align with state requirements.
Matt estimated a timeline tied to state rule updates, saying he hoped new state rules would be available by April; he described the overall rewrite as a nearly two‑year project if that schedule holds. The draft and related materials are posted on the county website and staff demonstrated where board members could read the draft ordinance.
Matt also noted procedural items: Planning Commission elections will occur in February and the county board may hold a work group session if the chair calls one; there is a vacancy for a rural resident on the Planning Commission following a commissioner appointment. Staff offered to provide further briefings in future board meetings if the board preferred more detailed reviews.
No formal action on the code update was taken at this meeting; the item was informational and staff indicated the process will include additional Planning Commission and county board review and likely state review where required.
The board moved from the code update to other new business after questions and brief discussion.
