Commission affirms planning director’s interpretation of employee‑housing impact fee; allows recalculation if building permit amended

San Miguel County commissioners affirmed the planning director’s written interpretation April 30 that an employee‑housing impact fee assessed on a building permit must use the mitigation rate tied to the total residential floor area of the dwelling when calculating fees for an addition.

The appeal, filed by property owner Sarah Vavra, challenged a $21,299 fee assessed when a June 2024 building permit authorized a 708‑square‑foot addition to an existing 3,640‑square‑foot home. Vavra’s attorney argued that the fee should be calculated on the new construction alone and that, under the county’s fee table, additions under 2,000 square feet should carry a 0% mitigation rate.

Planning director Kaye Simonson had issued a written interpretation in February that the code requires calculating the mitigation rate based on the residential improvements’ total floor area (existing plus addition) and assessing the fee on the additional square footage when the total exceeds the 2,000‑square‑foot exemption threshold. The director’s memo also explained how the county computes full‑time equivalent employee generation and applies the market affordability gap in the formula.

Board action and reasoning: During the hearing the board considered whether the director’s interpretation reflected the code’s intent and whether commissioners could apply an alternative calculation under the land‑use code’s appeal provisions. County counsel advised the board that while the code allows an appeal of fee determinations, the timely administrative appeal period had passed for the original building‑permit fee decision; the matter properly before the board was the director’s written interpretation. Commissioners ultimately voted to affirm the planning director’s interpretation, but they added a practical accommodation: the board directed planning and building staff to recalculate the fee if the owner submits an amended building permit with a reduced permitted floor area prior to final occupancy.

What the owner asked for: Attorney Chris Bridal argued the addition was a primary‑residence bedroom closet and bath and said it would not generate employees nor materially affect the county’s employee housing stock; he proposed either a 0% mitigation rate or a compromise calculation that would have reduced the fee to about $4,326.

Outcome and next steps: The board’s motion to affirm the planning director’s written interpretation passed. Commissioners said if Vavra files an amended building permit showing a lower permitted floor area, staff should recalculate the fee before issuing a certificate of occupancy and the board will issue its written decision within the code’s 30‑day window (expected May 21). The board did not order a refund at the meeting; it left recalculation to staff contingent on permit documents.

Ending: The hearing clarified how the county interprets and applies the employee‑housing impact fee formula to additions and established a narrow administrative path — permit amendment plus staff recalculation — for the owner to seek a reduced charge.