Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning, code staff warn LD 1829 could raise permit volume; committee considers shifting permit fees to planning work
Summary
Code and planning staff told the committee LD 1829 will allow denser development on small, sewered lots in York’s growth areas, likely increasing building‑permit activity; staff proposed using building‑permit revenues to cover legal, GIS and some planning costs rather than general taxation.
Code enforcement and planning staff told the Budget Committee on Jan. 20 that a recently enacted state law — LD 1829 — will change local land‑use allowances and is likely to increase building‑permit volume where water and sewer are available.
Harry Norton, director of code enforcement, said LD 1829 enables 5,000‑square‑foot lots in designated growth areas with access to water and sewer and described how those rules can allow multiple dwelling units (four units on the first 5,000‑ft parcel plus accessory units on many parcels), which “could double” housing in some built areas. Norton told the committee the change will not apply immediately: York must adopt implementing rules and the law’s town‑by‑town effects will be clearer as other municipalities finalize their approaches.
Dylan Smith, director of planning, said planning and code functions are tightly connected: planning writes and updates ordinances while code enforces them. Both offices flagged that York’s supplemental building ordinance and fee structure (unchanged in many cases since 2005) limit how building‑permit revenue can be spent. Staff proposed amending the ordinance and routing more of the building‑permit or planning‑application fees into planning and code functions such as GIS mapping, legal expenses tied to enforcement, and plan‑level work.
Town staff explained this year’s budget already shifts about $200,000 of amounts tied to building‑permit revenue into code‑funded activities and projected that conservative estimates would increase receipts but also warned of volatility: a recession or large drop in construction activity could reduce receipts and require use of general funds.
Why it matters: Staff said modest fee increases and clearer ordinance language could let fees cover their administrative and capital costs rather than relying on tax dollars. Committee members requested precise forecasts and fund‑balance schedules before advancing ordinance changes or large reassignments of revenue.
Provenance: The committee heard Norton’s LD 1829 explanation and Smith’s planning‑fee proposals during code enforcement and planning presentations (see meeting transcript).
