2/1/1984 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

FEB 1 1994 �x PACE One problem identified by the staff is the current zoning analysis/ fee system. This system presently involves imposition of a fee for a review function which is, at times, duplicative and probably bet- ter suited for another division. While this system was probably necessary in the past when the County's planning staff was physi- cally and functionally separated from the building department and a control mechanism was required, this is no longer the case. With the building and planning departments located in close proximity to one another and working closely with each other, the control pro- vided by a zoning permit is not required as long as a zcning review is performed in conjunction with another function. At present, the issuance of a zoning permit for a struc•,:ure which has received site plan approval or administrative approval involves a duplication of work performed by the planning.staff, since zoning requirements are considered during site plan review. As such, there appears to be no justification for the imposition of a zoning -fee in those cases. The zoning function, which involves review of proposed activities to ensure compliance with the standards of the applicable zoning district including permitted uses, setbacks, height limita- tions, etc., is a necessary -activity, but with most structures this function could be incorporated within the -building permit review process. Zoning fees currently represent a significant source of revenue for the County. In the first nine months --of Calendar year 1983, total revenue derived from zoning permit fees was over $41,000. Elimina- tion of those fees could represent a loss of revenue to the County of -more than $55,000 per year. Besides. the zoning fees, another inequity related to the County's fee system concerns building permit fees. At present, building permit fees differ from the City to the County. County building permit fees and plan checking fees are determined by the value of construction cost. The Board elected to adjust this valuation to reflect seventy five percent (750) of the total value for purposes of assessing fees, while the City uses 100% valuation. With a 100% valuation in effect during_the first nine months of Calendar year 1983, the additional revenue would have been $623,200. On an annual basis, this would be approximately $75,000. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS: The staff has considered the existing situation, assessing various alternatives to remedy the problems. In analyzing the situation, - the staff reviewed alternatives to the present system in relation to several objectives, including the elimination of fees for duplica- tive services, the establishment of an efficient process of permit review, and the establishment of an effective mechanism for imple- menting the County's zoning regulations. The staff has determined that the present system should be revised to correct some of the duplications and inefficiencies. First, the staff recommends that all zoning fees with the exception of five be abolished. Those..five are: beverage license inspection, mining per- mit, mining.permit renewal, temporary trailer permit, and home occu- pation permit. This would produce a revenue shortfall to the County of approximately $55,000 per year. Secondly, the staff recommends that the County building permit fee be increased to a level consistent with the fee charged by the City. This will involve computing total value of the construction cost for purposes of assessing the fees. The amount of revenue to be derived from this increase will be approximately $75,000, more than making up for the shortfall produced by abolishing the zoning permit fees. 46