Cedar Fort planning commission reviews fee schedule, engineering reviews and accessory-building standards as Title 10 updates advance

At a February work session the Cedar Fort Planning Commission reviewed proposed revisions to the town’s Title 10 land-use code and fee schedule, focusing on application fees, engineering-review practices and rules for accessory buildings and agricultural exemptions.

Planning staff presented a draft fee schedule and noted one specific change: Section 9-5-60(d) of the code currently lists a $1,500 nonrefundable down payment deposit for certain development applications; staff said the draft will update that figure to $3,500 to better cover outside engineering-review costs. The draft also lists a $50 application fee and indicates that plan-review and building-permit technical fees will be computed when plans are submitted.

Commissioners and staff discussed concerns that applicants sometimes receive large engineering invoices after a permit submission, which can leave the town absorbing or advancing review costs. Several commissioners favored collecting a larger upfront fee or a defined flat review fee tied to application type to ensure the town can pay engineering reviewers without delaying projects or billing the town after the fact.

The commission also considered how accessory buildings should be handled. The draft policy draws a line at 244 square feet: detached accessory structures above that threshold typically require structural review and, in practice, a stamped engineered plan. Commissioners raised concerns that some larger agricultural or “shop” buildings had been processed under agricultural exemptions without the structural review other buildings receive; the commission discussed clarifying the code and the agricultural exemption criteria so that exemptions are not used to avoid required engineering review.

Staff and commissioners agreed on several next steps: refine the draft fee schedule and Title 10 edits, identify where a fixed fee could replace open-ended hourly billing for common reviews, and return a redlined Title 10 with the proposed $3,500 change and explicit accessory-building thresholds for the commission to review and forward to the town council. No ordinance amendment or fee change was formally adopted at the work session.

Commission members asked staff to work with the town’s engineering reviewer (named in meeting materials) to produce predictable, itemized review costs per application type so the commission can adopt a fee schedule that covers expected consultant charges up front.

The commission also asked staff to draft clarifying language on temporary shipping containers, agricultural exemptions and the permitting path for premanufactured metal buildings so that enforcement and fees are applied consistently.