Is there a way to deal with permit revision delays?

[alishna]

Permit revision delays can be frustrating, but there are a few ways to help manage them. First, it's helpful to maintain clear and consistent communication with the permitting authority—regular check-ins can sometimes expedite the process or at least provide clarity on timelines. It also helps to ensure that all submitted documents are complete and accurate, as missing or unclear information often causes delays. If the delay is significantly impacting the project, consider escalating the issue through formal channels or requesting a meeting to address specific concerns. Lastly, having a buffer in your project timeline for such administrative delays can reduce the overall impact.

 

[W3 Planning and Research]

So here are my two cents. On the customer side of the equation, have someone else, anyone else, look over your work before submittal against a simple check list. Did you address all of the little things that will get out bounced out. Are the notes, the right jurisdiction, setbacks shown, details show, is the narrative clear, etc. Anyone, will be able to pick up on these details we ourselves tend to miss on our plans since we are too close to the work. Also, don't expect the jurisdiction to be your quality control. That is not what they are there for, so expecting the jurisdiction to catch your mistakes is poor practice and causes major delays. These things will greatly help.

On the jurisdiction side of the review, empower your reviewers to do as many corrections "as noted" as possible. This will help eliminate subsequent reviews for minor comments that can be addressed with a simple note. If the work is a quality issue, or there are major glaring issues, bounce the permit as soon as possible back to the applicant as opposed to doing a full review if you can. Put the onus on the contractor to provide quality work.

Also, from the jurisdiction side, include the property owners in every single piece of communication you can. This eliminates "the city" is delaying you when the problems are almost always on the contractor side for mistakes being made. This has an indirect benefit of the contractor learning how to get you proper submittals, because the last thing they want is for the city to point out their inability to submit a permit that is instantly approvable.

When I instituted these changes, we saw an immediate benefit to the improvement of turn around times.

Hope this helps!

 

[Eric]

So here are my two cents. On the customer side of the equation, have someone else, anyone else, look over your work before submittal against a simple check list. Did you address all of the little things that will get out bounced out. Are the notes, the right jurisdiction, setbacks shown, details show, is the narrative clear, etc. Anyone, will be able to pick up on these details we ourselves tend to miss on our plans since we are too close to the work. Also, don't expect the jurisdiction to be your quality control. That is not what they are there for, so expecting the jurisdiction to catch your mistakes is poor practice and causes major delays. These things will greatly help.

On the jurisdiction side of the review, empower your reviewers to do as many corrections "as noted" as possible. This will help eliminate subsequent reviews for minor comments that can be addressed with a simple note. If the work is a quality issue, or there are major glaring issues, bounce the permit as soon as possible back to the applicant as opposed to doing a full review if you can. Put the onus on the contractor to provide quality work.

Also, from the jurisdiction side, include the property owners in every single piece of communication you can. This eliminates "the city" is delaying you when the problems are almost always on the contractor side for mistakes being made. This has an indirect benefit of the contractor learning how to get you proper submittals, because the last thing they want is for the city to point out their inability to submit a permit that is instantly approvable.

When I instituted these changes, we saw an immediate benefit to the improvement of turn around times.

Hope this helps!

Great advice. I'll just add that consultants/expediters hold a reputation with their reviewers based on their professionalism and quality of work. If a consultant comes across to reviewers as error-prone, or hard to work with, or someone who plays fast and loose with the requirements, that could invite more scrutiny (and therefore delay) in future reviews.

 

[W3 Planning and Research]

Great advice. I'll just add that consultants/expediters hold a reputation with their reviewers based on their professionalism and quality of work. If a consultant comes across to reviewers as error-prone, or hard to work with, or someone who plays fast and loose with the requirements, that could invite more scrutiny (and therefore delay) in future reviews.

100% We knew who was good and who was bad. That is why communication with the owners at the same time as the consultants was vital! It removed us from being the "bad guys" in the equation.

 

[chasnr]

So here are my two cents. On the customer side of the equation, have someone else, anyone else, look over your work before submittal against a simple check list. Did you address all of the little things that will get out bounced out. Are the notes, the right jurisdiction, setbacks shown, details show, is the narrative clear, etc. Anyone, will be able to pick up on these details we ourselves tend to miss on our plans since we are too close to the work. Also, don't expect the jurisdiction to be your quality control. That is not what they are there for, so expecting the jurisdiction to catch your mistakes is poor practice and causes major delays. These things will greatly help.

On the jurisdiction side of the review, empower your reviewers to do as many corrections "as noted" as possible. This will help eliminate subsequent reviews for minor comments that can be addressed with a simple note. If the work is a quality issue, or there are major glaring issues, bounce the permit as soon as possible back to the applicant as opposed to doing a full review if you can. Put the onus on the contractor to provide quality work.

Also, from the jurisdiction side, include the property owners in every single piece of communication you can. This eliminates "the city" is delaying you when the problems are almost always on the contractor side for mistakes being made. This has an indirect benefit of the contractor learning how to get you proper submittals, because the last thing they want is for the city to point out their inability to submit a permit that is instantly approvable.

When I instituted these changes, we saw an immediate benefit to the improvement of turn around times.

Hope this helps!

I understand the point of having the homeowner on the permit communication, but, in my experience, it causes unnecessary stress for them as they are sometimes receiving miscellaneous emails that they do not need to be bogged down with. My job is to keep them in the loop of important aspects of the processing. It's a trust factor and if there are corrections needed, I will copy and paste what is needed and send to them. What I have found is that if they are in all communication, they will start emailing/calling me, blah blah blah as they just don't understand what they are receiving.

 

[W3 Planning and Research]

I understand the point of having the homeowner on the permit communication, but, in my experience, it causes unnecessary stress for them as they are sometimes receiving miscellaneous emails that they do not need to be bogged down with. My job is to keep them in the loop of important aspects of the processing. It's a trust factor and if there are corrections needed, I will copy and paste what is needed and send to them. What I have found is that if they are in all communication, they will start emailing/calling me, blah blah blah as they just don't understand what they are receiving.

Unfortunately I can't begin to tell you the number of phone calls and meetings that I have had with contractors and permit companies who use the phrase "the county/city is delaying your permit" when in fact it is the contractor or permit companies poor work. When we instituted this, we saw an immediate jump in quality from the submittals.

I had to answer to elected officials and the tax payers and had to defend at least one of these complaints per week, many of which ended up in social media and the news giving us a bad reputation. That instantly stopped when we communicated clearly with everyone involved in the permitting process. I strongly believe in transparency.

 

[Eric]

Unfortunately I can't begin to tell you the number of phone calls and meetings that I have had with contractors and permit companies who use the phrase "the county/city is delaying your permit" when in fact it is the contractor or permit companies poor work. When we instituted this, we saw an immediate jump in quality from the submittals.

I had to answer to elected officials and the tax payers and had to defend at least one of these complaints per week, many of which ended up in social media and the news giving us a bad reputation. That instantly stopped when we communicated clearly with everyone involved in the permitting process. I strongly believe in transparency.

We don't usually cc applicants on add info requests here at Corps Regulatory - at least in my office. My initial thought/fear is that cc'ing clients on every email with their consultants might not come across well (like cc'ing someone's boss). I agree, though, that even if the applicant doesn't understand most of the details we're talking about, they'd at least have real-time knowledge of their consultant's responsiveness, which would help overall transparency/efficiency.

Maybe when I initially reach out to applicants/consultants about their application, I'll start asking the applicant if they want to be kept in the loop on all future correspondence. Some might really appreciate that, instead of just assuming they don't want that level of visibility on their permit review.

 

[tdugan]

In my experience, revision turnarounds vary widely. If it's just a revision on the plans, we can get them redlined at the counter and signed off by a plans examiner while the customer is still in the office. If a whole new set of plans is received, they need to go back in the queue for review in the order received - and if we are short staffed, the processing time will be the same as it would be for a brand new plan review.
I will add that not all of these revisions require permit description changes, so that helps as far as cutting down on front office processing time.

 

[johnreynolds]

My two cents: Lock down the plan review cycle and make sure it's going through a single touch-point. For example, designate somebody (a permit tech) to serve as the gatekeeper for all new submission and feedback. It may feel faster to have, say, the engineer immediately send redlines back even before the planner has had a chance to review it, but its creates a bog of confusion and in the log run will extend overall approval times.

We have a little article about this here you can read, if you're interested.