Dunn County staff outlines major land‑division changes to meet new state law; committee asks for revisions

County staff told the Dunn County Planning, Resource and Development Committee on March 4 that state law changes enacted by Act 68 require multiple edits to the county’s land‑division ordinance and that the county must act quickly to meet a July 1 compliance deadline.

Tom Carlson, who presented the draft changes, said the most consequential statutory-driven change will be the dramatically shortened review window for final plats: the new timeline reduces final‑plat review to 10 days, a change that effectively requires department staff — rather than the committee — to sign final plats in most cases. Carlson said the committee will retain authority to review preliminary plats, but staff must manage final‑plat approval to meet the statutory deadlines.

“The new changes reduce that time limit down to 10 days,” Carlson said, explaining practical consequences: if a final plat is not submitted until shortly before a committee meeting, staff would have only days to process it and would be unable to involve the committee in a full review on most schedules.

The draft ordinance also proposes other substantive revisions: renaming and reformatting variance requests as "modification of provisions" with specific hardship and criteria; clarifying rules for outlots (different rules for outlots on certified survey maps and plats, and department‑provided notes to be placed on maps); changing definitions related to navigable water and closed depressions; allowing 33‑foot private‑road easements to serve up to two lots (with 66 feet required for larger subdivisions); and removing the 4:1 depth‑to‑width lot‑ratio requirement that has constrained some flag‑lot and driveway ownership scenarios.

Committee members pressed staff on several points. Supervisor Conir asked whether the committee should retain authority to review and act on final plats that have been delayed more than 36 months; several members favored retaining the committee’s review in those cases. Carlson proposed drafting alternative language and returning it at the next meeting. Committee members also asked for clearer wording on whether the county or town can hold financial security and how the 120% cap on security would be applied to combined township/county requirements.

Carlson said staff will take the committee’s feedback, redraft the ordinance language (particularly the 36‑month and private‑road notes), and return the revisions at the March 18 meeting. Staff intends to publish a class‑two notice for a public hearing in April and pursue two county‑board readings (May and June) so the ordinance can align with statutory timing.

The committee did not adopt the ordinance at the March 4 meeting; members asked for edited language and staff will return the revised draft and options for specific provisions at the next meeting.