Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Fees topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board opens public hearing on wide fee schedule changes; tables final vote to September after member briefings
Summary
County staff proposed a comprehensive Community Development fee schedule overhaul (planning, zoning and building permit fees). The board opened a public hearing, heard questions from supervisors and deferred a final vote to the September meeting so staff can meet one‑on‑one with supervisors to answer detailed questions.
Botetourt County opened a public hearing on a comprehensive update to community development fees — changes that would revise planning, zoning and building permit charges and add new fees for plan review, technology and advertising costs.
Staff told the board the schedule is the first comprehensive review in many years (some fees date to 1998 or 2005) and aims to shift more of the direct cost of permitting and plan review to applicants rather than the general taxpayer while controlling costs for small projects and preserving support for agricultural and conservation activities.
Key points in the proposal presented by staff included a recommended technology fee of 5% of permit-issuing fees, new or increased advertising fees tied to state notice requirements, a consolidated zoning fee structure by categories rather than individual residential districts, and higher per-acre rezoning fees (from $15 per acre to $25 per acre in many categories). On building permits staff proposed a simplified, value-based fee table that reduces fees for the smallest projects but raises fees for projects above certain thresholds; staff cited examples: a $200,000 residential permit would move from $1,180 to $1,240 under the proposal; a $1,000,000 commercial permit would be charged about $6,040 under the proposed schedule. Staff also proposed a refund policy patterned on a neighboring county (retaining 25% of the fee on refunded permits, with a suggested minimum retained amount under consideration).
The hearing drew no extended public testimony; instead board members asked detailed technical and policy questions: supervisors said the package was large and complex, asked how the numbers were developed and requested more time to review unintended consequences, and asked how small contractors and homeowners would be protected. Staff said they had worked on the schedule for about three years, used neighboring jurisdictions for benchmarking and sought guardrails — keep fees lower than adjacent localities in many categories, recover more costs from larger developers, and preserve agricultural exemptions.
After discussion Supervisor Clinton moved to postpone final action and direct community development to hold one‑on‑one or small-group briefings with board members before the September meeting. The board voted to table the resolution; a work schedule of meetings between staff and supervisors will occur prior to the board’s Sept. 23 meeting when the issue will be taken up again.
Why it matters: Changing fee schedules affects development costs, municipal revenue allocation and the competitiveness of local projects. Staff said community development currently covers roughly 48–49% of operating costs from fees and only 38% when capital is included; the proposed changes aim to increase cost recovery while steering impacts away from small projects.
What the board asked for next: more detailed, side-by-side comparisons, written cost estimates for specific example projects, and scheduled briefings between community development staff and board members. The board did not adopt any amendments at this meeting.
Ending: The board left the public hearing record open as part of the statutorily required process and will consider the fee schedule after the scheduled briefings and a future board vote at the September meeting.
