Streamlining the Permit Process: Tips for Improving Efficiency in Building Departments

[IrishEyes]

Streamlining the Permit Process: Tips for Improving Efficiency in Building Departments

The building permit process can be a bottleneck in construction, causing delays and frustration. To improve efficiency and customer satisfaction, building departments can implement the following strategies:

1. Online Permit Systems
Adopting online permit systems allows for electronic submission of applications, documents, and payments, reducing manual processing time.
Benefits:

• 24/7 Accessibility: Submit applications anytime.
• Real-Time Updates: Receive status updates, reducing follow-ups.
• Document Management: Simplifies tracking and retrieval.

2. Pre-Application Meetings
Pre-application meetings help clarify requirements and address potential issues early, saving time in the review process.
Benefits:

• Clarify Requirements: Reduces incomplete applications.
• Identify Issues Early: Prevents delays.
• Build Relationships: Fosters positive rapport.

3. Standardized Checklists and Forms
Using standardized checklists ensures complete and accurate submissions, reducing resubmissions.
Benefits:

• Consistency: Uniform application review.
• Efficiency: Saves time.
• Transparency: Easier navigation for applicants.

4. Cross-Training Staff
Cross-training staff enhances flexibility and improves workflow, allowing coverage during peak times or absences.
Benefits:

• Flexibility: Continuous service.
• Improved Knowledge: Better customer service.
• Team Cohesion: Encourages collaboration.

5. Leveraging Technology for Plan Reviews
Electronic plan reviews with digital tools streamline the process and improve accuracy.
Benefits:

• Efficiency: Reduces manual handling.
• Accuracy: Precise code compliance.
• Collaboration: Simultaneous reviews.

6. Continuous Process Improvement
Regularly seek feedback and make improvements to maintain efficiency.
Benefits:

• Adaptability: Aligns with evolving standards.
• Customer Satisfaction: Higher satisfaction rates.
• Operational Excellence: Encourages innovation.

Conclusion:

Implementing these strategies can streamline permit processes, reduce delays, and enhance efficiency, benefiting both building departments and applicants. Let's create a more efficient and responsive permit system together.

Anything you would add or have experienced?

 

[Matthew Humphrey]

I'm curious what software everyone uses, currently I am using Iworq and we are looking at going paperless and having an online application process. Currently we do everything off hard copies and want to move to digital. just curious if anybody has any good recommendations?

 

[Genduct]

Irish Eyes, Like the Nickname!

Of course having the job in the cloud or from the cloud instead of hard copy makes sense.

I think what my general advice to my submitters could be helpful:


1. What the Contractor needs to know to BID It and BUILD It is what I need to REVIEW IT
2. Try to answer the questions BEFORE I NEED TO ASK THEM

I like your suggestion to do a courtesy Look Over BEFORE it is submitted, So you won't have to "Bleed All Over The Drawing sounds like an Intelligent way to Win Friends and Influence People
You Know APPLY the Rules and NOT INFLICT THEM

SOmetime I think the Design Professional might want to make up some standard details that remind the Contractor what the Nailing Pattern is for the Sheathing and Floor deck, especially when Wind or Shear Walls are essential. We can ASSUME you know ASS-U-ME , that everyone has those in their memory bank ( YEAH, RIGHT) especially with nail guns with differenct ammo. But going to that extra level makes it clear what the Design Professional Needs to make it right

Make Sense?

 

[Mark K]

In my experience engineers make extensive use of standard details.

If the building department assumes specific details then they have in effect modified the code.

 

[Genduct]

In my experience engineers make extensive use of standard details.

If the building department assumes specific details then they have in effect modified the code.

Mark, True and Agreed

The problem is Who remembers the size of fasteners or spacing, especially when it is a Shear Wall meant to provide structural value to the job was my point

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Genduct's post #3, Mark K's response (post #4) and the response to that (post#5) exemplify a common problem -- designers (architects, PEs, and unlicensed home designers and drafting services) who think they are doing their job by filling drawings up with generic notes calling for 'X' and 'Y' and 'Z' to be constructed "per code" or "as required by the code in effect in the jurisdiction where the project will be constructed."

That's nonsense. When we used the BOCA code, the section on information required in construction documents clearly stated something to the effect of "language such as 'per code' or its equivalent shall not be a substitute for providing specific information." When the 2000 IBC (and IRC) first came out, that language went away, to be replaced by

[A] 107.2.1 Information on construction documents.
Construction documents shall be dimensioned and drawn on
suitable material. Electronic media documents are permitted to
be submitted where approved by the building official.
Construction documents shall be of sufficient clarity to indicate
the location, nature and extent of the work proposed and
show in detail that it will conform to the provisions of this
code and relevant laws, ordinances, rules and regulations, as
determined by the building official.

Way back then, I reached out to the staff at the ICC to complain about the loss of the language prohibiting citing or referring to the code instead of providing specific information. The answer I received back then was that the intent remains the same, and that I could cite section 107.2.1. However, citing section 107.2.1 always results in pushback -- so often and so much so that in our last code revision cycle I was able to get the State to put that language back into our adoption amendment. Unfortunately, I didn't take it far enough -- I got it into the IBC and the IRC, but not the IMC and the IPC.

Throughout my career as an architect and, more recently, as a code official, the individual I hate the most is a contractor with a code book -- and no understanding of what the words in the book mean. Nailing schedules are a good example. There are prescriptive nailing schedules in the IRC. They apply, whether they are reproduced on the plans or not. Should every framer carry around a copy of the IRC so he/she can look up the required nailing pattern? My answer is not just no, but "Hell no!" The nailing pattern should be on the drawings -- which the code requires to be maintained on the site.

Can we force the framer to look at the drawings? Not directly -- we can't put a gun to their head and force them to look at the nailing schedule before they pick up the nail gun. But if the information is available to them, right there on the same plans they're looking at to know where to put the doors, windows, and walls, there's a much better chance they'll see it than if all they have is a note (maybe -- or maybe not) that refers to the nailing schedule in the IRC -- or just says "nail per code."

 

[tmurray]

Genduct's post #3, Mark K's response (post #4) and the response to that (post#5) exemplify a common problem -- designers (architects, PEs, and unlicensed home designers and drafting services) who think they are doing their job by filling drawings up with generic notes calling for 'X' and 'Y' and 'Z' to be constructed "per code" or "as required by the code in effect in the jurisdiction where the project will be constructed."

That's nonsense. When we used the BOCA code, the section on information required in construction documents clearly stated something to the effect of "language such as 'per code' or its equivalent shall not be a substitute for providing specific information." When the 2000 IBC (and IRC) first came out, that language went away, to be replaced by



Way back then, I reached out to the staff at the ICC to complain about the loss of the language prohibiting citing or referring to the code instead of providing specific information. The answer I received back then was that the intent remains the same, and that I could cite section 107.2.1. However, citing section 107.2.1 always results in pushback -- so often and so much so that in our last code revision cycle I was able to get the State to put that language back into our adoption amendment. Unfortunately, I didn't take it far enough -- I got it into the IBC and the IRC, but not the IMC and the IPC.

Throughout my career as an architect and, more recently, as a code official, the individual I hate the most is a contractor with a code book -- and no understanding of what the words in the book mean. Nailing schedules are a good example. There are prescriptive nailing schedules in the IRC. They apply, whether they are reproduced on the plans or not. Should every framer carry around a copy of the IRC so he/she can look up the required nailing pattern? My answer is not just no, but "Hell no!" The nailing pattern should be on the drawings -- which the code requires to be maintained on the site.

Can we force the framer to look at the drawings? Not directly -- we can't put a gun to their head and force them to look at the nailing schedule before they pick up the nail gun. But if the information is available to them, right there on the same plans they're looking at to know where to put the doors, windows, and walls, there's a much better chance they'll see it than if all they have is a note (maybe -- or maybe not) that refers to the nailing schedule in the IRC -- or just says "nail per code."

Completely agree. If you don't make it easy for them to do it right, they won't.

 

[tmurray]

One of the concerns about pre-application meetings is that these meetings should not turn into the jurisdiction dictating the design of the building. There was a jurisdiction in this province who would meet before there was any conceptual plans to agree, disagree, or provide "advice" on how the developer/designer proceed with their design. Dangerous territory.

When we did them, we always required the designer to have conceptual drawings and basically allowed them to present their design. If they had an alternative solution, they would propose the concept and we would indicate our comfort level. This just ensures that if something is a hard no, they do not waste time/money exploring the option.

As you indicate, it is a good opportunity to re-iterate minimum submission requirements and deal with potential major issues earlier in the design phase.

 

[steveray]

Genduct's post #3, Mark K's response (post #4) and the response to that (post#5) exemplify a common problem -- designers (architects, PEs, and unlicensed home designers and drafting services) who think they are doing their job by filling drawings up with generic notes calling for 'X' and 'Y' and 'Z' to be constructed "per code" or "as required by the code in effect in the jurisdiction where the project will be constructed."

That's nonsense. When we used the BOCA code, the section on information required in construction documents clearly stated something to the effect of "language such as 'per code' or its equivalent shall not be a substitute for providing specific information." When the 2000 IBC (and IRC) first came out, that language went away, to be replaced by



Way back then, I reached out to the staff at the ICC to complain about the loss of the language prohibiting citing or referring to the code instead of providing specific information. The answer I received back then was that the intent remains the same, and that I could cite section 107.2.1. However, citing section 107.2.1 always results in pushback -- so often and so much so that in our last code revision cycle I was able to get the State to put that language back into our adoption amendment. Unfortunately, I didn't take it far enough -- I got it into the IBC and the IRC, but not the IMC and the IPC.

Throughout my career as an architect and, more recently, as a code official, the individual I hate the most is a contractor with a code book -- and no understanding of what the words in the book mean. Nailing schedules are a good example. There are prescriptive nailing schedules in the IRC. They apply, whether they are reproduced on the plans or not. Should every framer carry around a copy of the IRC so he/she can look up the required nailing pattern? My answer is not just no, but "Hell no!" The nailing pattern should be on the drawings -- which the code requires to be maintained on the site.

Can we force the framer to look at the drawings? Not directly -- we can't put a gun to their head and force them to look at the nailing schedule before they pick up the nail gun. But if the information is available to them, right there on the same plans they're looking at to know where to put the doors, windows, and walls, there's a much better chance they'll see it than if all they have is a note (maybe -- or maybe not) that refers to the nailing schedule in the IRC -- or just says "nail per code."

Shirley I've told this story here before...Had a level and rebuild McDonalds project where the designer specified 8d nails for shear. I asked for a gage and settled for "common"..Of course common was not what was used (and is not common in gun nails) and the design solution was now to plywood the inside of the building as well...For everyone's sake, I get nail gage on the approved plans now...

 

[Sifu]

Pre-app meetings are a great tool...until they aren't. Too often a concept is presented that throws up no obvious red flags, and the response is something like "sounds good, make sure the design meets the code". What the applicant hears is something like "sounds good". It lands on my desk with major problems and the first response is "we had a pre-app and nobody told us we had to do this". It is erroneously understood that a pre-app is a code review, and erroneously understood that what may or may not have been understood in a pre-app concerns me too much.

Most pre-apps in my experience do not include a design professional, and if they do they have done little homework. And if they include a building official (many are conducted by P & Z and leave out the BO) there is a tendency to not be careful enough when answering questions that can't possibly be answered without a deeper dive. All the disclaimers in the world don't help when people only hear what they want to hear.

 

[jar546]

If the building department assumes specific details then they have in effect modified the code.

Please elaborate. I would like to have an example or better explanation.

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Shirley I've told this story here before...Had a level and rebuild McDonalds project where the designer specified 8d nails for shear. I asked for a gage and settled for "common"..Of course common was not what was used (and is not common in gun nails) and the design solution was now to plywood the inside of the building as well...For everyone's sake, I get nail gage on the approved plans now...

8d (8-penny) common nails are 10-gauge. If a 2-1/2" nail doesn't have a 10-gauge shank and a 9/32" diameter head -- it's not an 8d nail. And you are correct -- I don't think any 2-1/2" nails for pneumatic nailers are 10-gauge (0.134") in shank diameter.

Nail Size Chart – Different Nail Sizes and Diameters

Find out more about nail sizes from this guide, including a nail size chart for common, box, annular, and threaded nails, as well as details on different nail types.

www.thomasnet.com

Standard Nail Size Table Chart and Nail Terms

Box nail size indentification chart and nail types, uses and definitions

www.engineersedge.com

 

[Yankee Chronicler]

Pre-app meetings are a great tool...until they aren't. Too often a concept is presented that throws up no obvious red flags, and the response is something like "sounds good, make sure the design meets the code". What the applicant hears is something like "sounds good". It lands on my desk with major problems and the first response is "we had a pre-app and nobody told us we had to do this". It is erroneously understood that a pre-app is a code review, and erroneously understood that what may or may not have been understood in a pre-app concerns me too much.

We have to agree to such pre-design meetings, because we have orders fro the powers-that-be to be "user friendly." So we try to be extremely conscious of exactly the problem you describe, and if I'm involved in these meetings I usually draft a memo to file to "memorialize" our understanding of what was said -- and, especially, what advice we have and what advice we DIDN'T give.

We generally start out by stating for the record that we can't tell anyone what they can or can't do, other than that they have to satisfy the code.

 

[Inspector Gadget]

Genduct's post #3, Mark K's response (post #4) and the response to that (post#5) exemplify a common problem -- designers (architects, PEs, and unlicensed home designers and drafting services) who think they are doing their job by filling drawings up with generic notes calling for 'X' and 'Y' and 'Z' to be constructed "per code" or "as required by the code in effect in the jurisdiction where the project will be constructed."

Gaugh! I hate that language. Because half the time, the plans come from somewhere in Alabama where they "ain't got no snow." Then someone wants to use those plans up here in Canada, where we have snow, and cold. And the plans are essentially useless. So I ask for new plans .... but the client has already paid some plans warehouse, and can't redesign them easily.

We have to agree to such pre-design meetings, because we have orders fro the powers-that-be to be "user friendly." So we try to be extremely conscious of exactly the problem you describe, and if I'm involved in these meetings I usually draft a memo to file to "memorialize" our understanding of what was said -- and, especially, what advice we have and what advice we DIDN'T give.

We generally start out by stating for the record that we can't tell anyone what they can or can't do, other than that they have to satisfy the code.

Our office has a general policy that we don't look at plans until there's been an application. Saves headaches like the above.

 

[jar546]

Gaugh! I hate that language. Because half the time, the plans come from somewhere in Alabama where they "ain't got no snow." Then someone wants to use those plans up here in Canada, where we have snow, and cold. And the plans are essentially useless. So I ask for new plans .... but the client has already paid some plans warehouse, and can't redesign them easily.

I had the same issues when I was in Pennsylvania. A lot of plans were coming out of Georgia.

 

[tmurray]

I had the same issues when I was in Pennsylvania. A lot of plans were coming out of Georgia.

And a lot of IRC references that don't mean much here in Canada.

Normal plan review for a house took me around 1-2 hours. The first set of plans designed to the IRC I got took me almost a full day. It was the last set we ever accepted. After that, we simply rejected them as being designed to the wrong code.

 

[jar546]

And a lot of IRC references that don't mean much here in Canada.

Normal plan review for a house took me around 1-2 hours. The first set of plans designed to the IRC I got took me almost a full day. It was the last set we ever accepted. After that, we simply rejected them as being designed to the wrong code.

You save a lot of time that way.

 

[Sifu]

We have to agree to such pre-design meetings, because we have orders fro the powers-that-be to be "user friendly." So we try to be extremely conscious of exactly the problem you describe, and if I'm involved in these meetings I usually draft a memo to file to "memorialize" our understanding of what was said -- and, especially, what advice we have and what advice we DIDN'T give.

We generally start out by stating for the record that we can't tell anyone what they can or can't do, other than that they have to satisfy the code.

In more than a few AHJ's I was required to attend the meetings, however, I was soon unrequired to attend, as I refused to answer the "what do we have to do" questions, and my involvement wasn't "helpful" to the rainbows and butterflies mindset.

My take was that usually when a code question was asked, the answer was already known, but they were just trying to answer shop and trap people into getting them to give them something to go on later. Cynical, but that was my experience. This experience was based on the fact that I have been trapped...before I was cynical.

The most common questions:
Do we need to hire a design professional? (the person who must answer the remaining questions, and should have been there in the first place)
What is our occupancy classification? (they want to be something they are not)
Do we need sprinklers? (they want to avoid sprinklers at all costs)
What is our occupant load? (but there will never be that many in my building!)

All questions related, all questions to be answered by the DP. The rainbow people got tired of me saying that there is not enough information to answer them, and that they need to consult with their design professional.

Unfortunately, the P&Z people, and CBO's (if they are included) are sometimes beholden to the rainbow mentality, and can't help but try to be helpful. Often answering questions that can't possibly be answered on the fly. Not that they couldn't given the time and research, just that they felt they should. It is often less than helpful.

 

[mtlogcabin]

Planning is a visionary mindset.



Building codes are regulatory.

 

[steveray]

In more than a few AHJ's I was required to attend the meetings, however, I was soon unrequired to attend, as I refused to answer the "what do we have to do" questions, and my involvement wasn't "helpful" to the rainbows and butterflies mindset.

My take was that usually when a code question was asked, the answer was already known, but they were just trying to answer shop and trap people into getting them to give them something to go on later. Cynical, but that was my experience. This experience was based on the fact that I have been trapped...before I was cynical.

The most common questions:
Do we need to hire a design professional? (the person who must answer the remaining questions, and should have been there in the first place)
What is our occupancy classification? (they want to be something they are not)
Do we need sprinklers? (they want to avoid sprinklers at all costs)
What is our occupant load? (but there will never be that many in my building!)

All questions related, all questions to be answered by the DP. The rainbow people got tired of me saying that there is not enough information to answer them, and that they need to consult with their design professional.

Unfortunately, the P&Z people, and CBO's (if they are included) are sometimes beholden to the rainbow mentality, and can't help but try to be helpful. Often answering questions that can't possibly be answered on the fly. Not that they couldn't given the time and research, just that they felt they should. It is often less than helpful.

I prefer them to have some sort of plan when they come in, but sometimes they are just fishing for project viability and I have no issue with that either..If sprinklers are a project killer for them, I will give them loose guidance on those thresholds that they might want to avoid or adjust their business model to meet their budget...

 

[tmurray]

In more than a few AHJ's I was required to attend the meetings, however, I was soon unrequired to attend, as I refused to answer the "what do we have to do" questions, and my involvement wasn't "helpful" to the rainbows and butterflies mindset.

My take was that usually when a code question was asked, the answer was already known, but they were just trying to answer shop and trap people into getting them to give them something to go on later. Cynical, but that was my experience. This experience was based on the fact that I have been trapped...before I was cynical.

The most common questions:
Do we need to hire a design professional? (the person who must answer the remaining questions, and should have been there in the first place)
What is our occupancy classification? (they want to be something they are not)
Do we need sprinklers? (they want to avoid sprinklers at all costs)
What is our occupant load? (but there will never be that many in my building!)

All questions related, all questions to be answered by the DP. The rainbow people got tired of me saying that there is not enough information to answer them, and that they need to consult with their design professional.

Unfortunately, the P&Z people, and CBO's (if they are included) are sometimes beholden to the rainbow mentality, and can't help but try to be helpful. Often answering questions that can't possibly be answered on the fly. Not that they couldn't given the time and research, just that they felt they should. It is often less than helpful.

It sounds like your meetings weren't structured properly. I think sometimes the problem is that people go into these meetings and allow the developer to run the meeting because they don't have a plan/agenda. A meeting without an agenda is a waste of time. An agenda better allows the AHJ to control how the scope of what is discussed.

You will still get code questions, and the answer is either a no, or we can review that as part of your submission. Not yes. The answer is never yes.

 

[Inspector Gadget]

You will still get code questions, and the answer is either a no, or we can review that as part of your submission. Not yes. The answer is never yes.

^^^
This. When I first got into this business, a professional in the fire marshal's office gave me the advice to keep my lips shut until an application was in front of my eyeballs. I have come to understand the wisdom of that view. Otherwise the client says "the inspector says it was OK."

I had a contractor tell a client that I'd "passed" something. Nuh-huh. If I am rendering a verdict, there will be a document. No document, no verdict.

That's a black-and-white line and I do not frig with it.

 

[Sifu]

It sounds like your meetings weren't structured properly.

100% accurate. In one previous AHJ I was able to "require" (I made a form) an agenda and list of attendees. Many times the agenda did not match the list of attendees that would be required to address the agenda items. Sadly, though I have suggested this approach many times, few AHJ's have implemented the agenda/attendee request.

 

[Inspector Gift]

In one previous AHJ I was able to "require" (I made a form) an agenda and list of attendees. Many times the agenda did not match the list of attendees that would be required to address the agenda items.

Excellent idea! I haven't seen this in any jurisdiction that I've worked in. I am going to share this with our Director!