A proposal made recently would increase application fees for requests heard by the Elizabethtown Planning Commission and Board of Zoning Adjustment.
That includes zoning map amendments, subdivision plats, development plans and variance requests.
Elizabethtown Planning and Development Director Jim Shaw presented the idea to city council at its meeting Monday. He said some of the fees were last adjusted in 2008, while others date back to 2003.
In the proposal, the preliminary plat application would remain the same at $500 with the addition of $10 per lot. The record plat and amended record plat would increase from $250 to $300 with the addition of $10 per lot.
The development plan application would increase from $100 to $200, while the development plan amendment would increase to $100 from $50.
The proposal also has zoning map amendments increasing from $350 to $500 and variances and conditional uses jumping to $200 from $150.
Where previously there was no re-advertisement fee, the proposal adds a fee of $100. It also adds a fee of $500 for comprehensive plan or future land use amendments.
Shaw said the Hardin County Clerk’s Office increased its recording fees at the beginning of this year.
“Some of the applications we consider require us to record documents, the cost of which we pay out of the fees we charge,” he said. “Other costs for reviewing and processing applications have increased since we last reviewed our fees as well.”
Shaw said the Planning and Development Department accepts the applications, performs its own review, coordinates the review by other departments and grants the final approval.
He noted most of the applications also are reviewed by other city departments such as engineering and stormwater. He said they do not charge a separate review fee.
“The application fees rarely cover the full cost the city incurs in processing them,” he said.
According to Shaw, the Planning and Development Department collects the application fees, but the money goes into the general fund for use by all departments. None of these fees are earmarked for the department.
“The primary reasons for proposing the changes are to recoup the increased recording fees and to partially account for the other costs that have increased since the fees were last reviewed in 2003 and 2008,” he said.