The latest trends in the approvals process were fueled by the real estate development boom that began in the late 1990s. Since that time, gains and losses have occurred relevant to streamlining the process on both the state and local levels, in spite of the fact that the permitting process has been an outside variable.

It remains encouraging that developers are being invited into discussions relevant to the improvement of existing permitting systems or in some cases, creating new systems altogether. More and more local and state agencies with building code enforcement authority are implementing successful alternatives for plan review and inspection programs in an effort to expedite the commercial approvals process.

Outside Consultants for Plan Review and Inspections    
The state of Texas implemented a program where “contract providers,” who are approved outside consultants, provide both plan review and inspections for compliance with the Texas Accessibility Standards. Essentially, a developer contracts directly with a state-approved consultant to review their building and site plans for compliance with the state’s accessibility regulations. The plan review occurs independently from the building department reviews, though the building department may require proof of approval prior to permit issuance.

Inspections by contract providers are also mandated to ensure the accessibility elements were constructed in accordance with the approved plans. The inspections are totally independent from the building department inspections; in fact, the accessibility inspection can occur up to one year after the building has been occupied and the business is operational.

Florida’s private provider program expands the concept utilized in Texas by incorporating a comprehensive plan review for all aspects of the Florida Building Code series, not just the accessibility component. Similar to Texas, developers can contract with qualified “private providers” for plan-review and inspection services of commercial facilities.

Unlike the independent connection with the building departments in Texas, Florida’s program is intertwined with the building departments. For example, once the plans are reviewed and approved, the private provider must document the review with an affidavit.

Immediately following, the plans must still be submitted to the building department for fire code review, at a minimum, since the Florida Fire Prevention Code is independent of the Florida Building Codes. The same type of documentation is required by the provider during the inspection process and must be provided to the building department which maintains responsibility for the Certificate of Occupancy.

Audits for both the plan review and inspection side can be initiated at the discretion of the building department as a quality control feature to ensure that the minimum standards are met.

Local Alternatives and Plan­ ­Review Offer Enticing Options
Three years ago, the city of Chicago implemented a successful “self certification” system.

This program allows the architect, for example, to become an authorized, self-certified architect who can review his or her own work and certify that the plans are in compliance with the city of Chicago building codes.

With a scheduled appointment, a cursory review is completed over the counter at the building department and if the plans are approved, the permit can be ready for issuance in a matter of days. This replaces the city’s traditional plan review where it can take months for a project to be approved.

One of the reasons the program is successful is that the city has provided specific parameters. For example, from the outset, the city limited the type of projects that would qualify. Alterations or tenant build outs were accepted, though only certain occupancies such as business and mercantile were permitted.

Recently, however, due to the program’s success, the city has expanded its definition of qualified buildings to include small assembly occupancies up to 300 occupants, which enables most restaurants, as well as retail buildings to participate. Similar to Florida, the city can conduct random audits of projects to ensure the program maintains its integrity.

Another jurisdiction that has created a system to assist the developer to expedite the permitting process is the city of Raleigh, N.C. Once the plans are reviewed through the traditional submittal process, the city allows the applicant to request a meeting to be attended by all signing and sealing professionals for clarification. This system allows plan approval to be finalized right there in the meeting with permit issuance taking place in the days following.Though this approach can be very expensive and difficult to coordinate all parties involved, it does provide a means for developers to begin construction quicker.

Pilot Prototype Plan Review Program — A Step in the Right Direction
The state of Florida entered a groundbreaking area when implementing an ambitious program for statewide approval of prototype buildings. The intent of the program was to alleviate the redundancy of reviewing the same set of construction plans for the same building that would be constructed in multiple locations in the state, such as chain restaurants, retail, and banks, for example. From the outset, this was clearly intended to save time and money for developers either considering multiple project locations or those that currently had a program underway.

The Prototype Plan Review program proved to be a huge undertaking. However, even with all parties doing their best, at the end of the day, some major obstacles still needed to be tackled for commercial prototype buildings. In August of 2007, the Florida Building Commission voted to rescind the program.

Nonetheless, this pilot program represents the ongoing efforts at the state level to strive for new and/or better means of assisting developers in the permitting process.

Another innovative approach for prototype review has been implemented by the city of Chicago. Their program allows peer reviews specifically for the structural component. Once the structural peer plan review is completed it is combined with self-certified architectural plans and taken through the walk-though process for permits.

The addition of the peer review for prototype projects is necessary to ensure the structural integrity of buildings. One of the key benefits of the peer-review program is that it offers a second set of eyes for quality assurance. The relatively new alternative program with the additional peer review appears to be very successful and well received.

Flexibility in the Permitting Process Short Circuits ­Development Process
On local levels, in the name of efficiency and effectiveness, each municipality has implemented its own internal system to route plans and process permits. Although it’s imperative that a system is in place, some programs don’t easily and readily translate to the developer’s overall timeline.

Additionally, often it’s difficult for agencies to fathom the extent of external pressures that the developer has to contend with during the approval process. There are literally hundreds of steps required to realize development goals with permitting representing only one piece of the puzzle, and it’s a piece that cannot be controlled by the developer.

To that end, some jurisdictions are making strides to assist developers in getting through the approvals process more efficiently. Flexibility by the city, county, or state agencies is paramount to enhance success.

For example, it’s a step in the right direction to allow a building permit to be issued with the condition that the approved plat or the final easement documentation must be recorded prior to Certificate of Occupancy. Another timesaving concept allows fire sprinkler shop drawings to be provided prior to installation rather than requiring them at plan submittal. Allowing contractors to be named at permit issuance rather with the submittal of plans, also supports ­efficiency.

More jurisdictions now require that general contractors and even subcontractors, be named prior to submittal. This wreaks havoc with the timing of the overall development schedule as often times, bidding and plan approval submissions occur simultaneously. Waiting until a permit is issued to identify ­contractors can in itself save four to six weeks at a minimum in the project ­timeline.

More and more jurisdictions are evaluating their internal system to identify ways to assist developers in streamlining the approval process for building permits. It’s clearly a step in the right direction that some state agencies, as well as various local municipalities have been confronting and examining approachs to streamlining the permitting process. They are taking developers concerns under advisement and making adjustments to their process which can equate to huge time savings in construction starts.

Those who are all too familiar with the intricacies of permitting will no doubt concur: flexibility in the permitting process is extremely helpful in short circuiting the timeline for overall ­development. SLDT