Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Development Code Rewrite topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Clay County planning staff outlines land development code rewrite; Planning Commission to review chapters 5–8
Summary
County planning staff reported the Planning Commission reviewed draft chapters 1–4 of the Land Development Code and will review chapters 5–8 covering development standards, subdivision rules and administration; staff expects related state rule updates by April and posted the draft online for public review.
Planning staff member Matt (last name not provided) told the Clay County Board of Commissioners that the county’s Land Development Code rewrite is moving forward: the Planning Commission reviewed draft chapters 1–4 in December and will review chapters 5–8, which cover development standards, subdivisions, administration and definitions.
Matt said chapters 5–8 address dimensional standards, access and parking, fencing, tree standards, subdivision regulations and procedures for variances and use permits. He told the board that certain components of the draft—shoreland, floodplain and feedlot provisions—will require state review because they must conform to Minnesota statutes and rules.
"I am hoping that by April they would be out," Matt said when asked about the expected release of related state rules. He added that much of the draft work on shoreland, flood hazard and feedlot sections was intended to better match state requirements and that he did not anticipate major state comments because the draft aligns with current statutes and rules.
Matt directed board members and the public to the county website, where the draft chapters are posted in the county "spotlight" for review, and said the Planning Commission may convene a county board work group session if the board desires additional review before the board-level public hearings. He also noted that the Planning Commission holds elections in February and that a rural resident vacancy exists on the commission following a recent appointment of Ezra Baier as a commissioner.
Commission discussion included questions about eligibility and conflicts of interest for Planning Commission members; Matt said statute language can limit service for people actively involved in development, though active realtors have served historically and the county evaluates conflicts case-by-case.
No formal board action was recorded on the code draft in the transcript; staff asked whether the board wanted additional review time and said staff could return in February if the board’s schedule allowed.
