Pittsylvania County staff propose new solar permit fees and larger land‑disturbance charges to recover inspection costs

County staff presented a two‑part proposal on Nov. 18 to change how Pittsylvania County charges for solar permits and for erosion/land‑disturbance permits, saying the goal is to recover administrative and inspection costs and make fee rules consistent.

Otis Vaughn, the county’s chief building official, said the county lacks a clear solar schedule and recommended charging by megawatt for utility‑scale projects rather than trying to measure panels or posts. Vaughn presented example tiers and told the board that smaller utility projects could be charged about $2,000 per megawatt with sliding reductions for very large sites; he said a 150‑MW site could yield a roughly $141,000 building‑permit fee under the new formula. “The true factor is megawatts,” Vaughn said, adding that long travel distances and multiple site visits in the largest county by land area make inspection time expensive.

Separately, the erosion and sediment control program administrator presented changes to land‑disturbance fees. Staff said the current residential inspection fee of $50 does not cover multiple visits for typical 60–180‑day projects and proposed increasing the residential land‑disturbance permit to $150. For larger commercial or multi‑acre projects, the proposal includes a base fee plus monthly inspection charges (examples: $200/month for sites ≤25 acres; $250/month for 25–100 acres; $400/month for sites over 100 acres). Staff showed example permit calculations where proposed fees for large sites rose substantially compared with the existing schedule and said the county could pass third‑party inspection costs through to applicants for very large projects.

Board members asked which localities were used for comparison; Vaughn said Amherst, Franklin, Bedford and Halifax were among those reviewed. Members also asked about effective dates and whether current permit approvals would be grandfathered; staff said existing approval letters with a permit value would be honored for applications already approved. County attorney/staff asked the board for a “thumbs up” to advertise a public hearing on the proposed rates; board members signaled general support for advertising the hearing so the public can comment.

Staff emphasized that the changes are intended to make the fee schedule consistent and to avoid subsidizing lengthy inspections and third‑party reviews. The board did not adopt the rates at the work session but authorized staff to advertise an upcoming public hearing.