Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning And Planning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council weighs increase to zoning hearing fees, agrees interim schedule and review timeline
Summary
Councilors reviewed a consultant cost analysis and discussed increases to zoning hearing and conditional use application fees. Members agreed to an interim schedule (residential at a reduced hike and larger increases for commercial/conditional filings) with an effective date and a commitment to revisit data and impacts before further increases.
The Borough Council examined a proposed overhaul to zoning‑related application fees after staff and consultants presented a cost‑recovery analysis showing prior fee levels no longer covered administrative costs.
Staff said the objective was to recover a larger portion of out‑of‑pocket costs — advertising, court reporting and additional meeting time for solicitors and board members — while avoiding fees that would unduly burden residents who seek small, routine approvals. Staff presented computed “true cost” figures for processing applications (for example, advertising and related costs), and then proposed rounding options for the fee schedule.
Council discussion: several councilors expressed concern about a steep jump from long‑standing fees (some were described as “30 years old”) to four‑digit figures for routine residential variance applications. One council member noted examples such as modest front porch or shed variances where the project cost might be relatively small but the applicant could be a long‑time resident.
Compromise chosen: rather than adopting the highest calculated figures immediately, councilors agreed by consensus to an interim approach: raise the residential zoning application fee to a mid‑range level (discussion centered on a residential figure of about $8.50 in the calculation phase) and set higher fees for commercial and conditional‑use filings so that more complex, more costly applications contribute more to administration and solicitor time. Staff will return with more application‑level data and a one‑year review after implementation.
Staff also noted the practical mechanics: advertising in the newspaper and doubling ad runs are major drivers of cost and that zoning hearing board attendance and solicitor time can vary case by case. Council asked for a clear implementation date for the revised fee schedule and staff suggested an effective date in early September to allow for public notice and incorporation into the annual fee resolution.
Outcome and next steps: councilors agreed to proceed with the interim fee schedule and asked staff to publish the changes and monitor impacts. Staff will bring updated data and an evaluation for council review before any larger increases are considered.
