23 Ways to Streamline Permitting

Lengthy and complex approval procedures, numerous and often conflicting environmental regulations, and costly fees assessed on development affect the final home cost, and sometimes threaten project feasibility. Processing delays and uncertainty add significantly to the price of a home and may result in excluding many from their chance at the American Dream.

Builders, developers, and potential homeowners are all affected by the increasingly high costs of developing land for home building. They must pay interest each month on the money they borrow to purchase land and build. Needless delays in permitting add to these overhead costs. According to the Land-Use Regulation Handbook (National Institute of Building Sciences, 1990), one study conducted in the early 1980s found that every month of delay in the approval process added 1 to 2 percent to the final price of a home.

The National Association of Home Builders measured the increases to housing prices caused by regulations and permitting delays in a 1998 survey. The association asked builders in 42 markets across the country to break down the cost of building a house. They responded that government regulations, delays and fees added an average of 10 percent to the total building cost, accounting for upwards of 20 percent of the sales price in some markets.

The City of Renton has been used as an example of how to streamline the permitting process. The most productive part of their effort was the work with internal administration. They made sure every step was reflected in a flow chart by charting the process for the most prevalent types of land use permits. They were horrified with the duplications, start and stop points, recognizing that one piece of review was done at a time in an assembly line approach.

They got to work chopping out redundancies, changing series steps of the process to parallel steps, and took a rigorous approach to eliminate unnecessary steps. Very quickly they arrived at more efficient processes that freed staff of the growing backlog of permit applications. In a "getting to yes" approach with the staff they established a staff advocate for each permit they were reviewing. By implementing these measures the city reduced its turnaround time by 50 percent in two years.

Here is a list of possible measures that can be used at the local level to make the development permit process more effective, efficient, and thus, less costly in your community. (PLEASE NOTE: It is also helpful to take a clear look at the affects that a community's regulations have on development. View a list of considerations for evaluating and revising your community's regulations .)

1. Initial Assessment: Take stock of how long various approval processes take helps identify where the process is bogging down.

2. Presumption of Approval: Overall there should be a presumption that approval will be granted if development standards are met. Applicants should not be routinely forced into case-by-case reviews. Case-by-case reviews should be an option, but not the norm, and they should be aimed at enhancing flexibility and quality and not stifling it. If development standards are met there should be a presumption of approval.

3. By-Right Development: Allow project proposals to be approved within certain time limits without discretionary review when the proposal does not exceed code, or does not have identifiable impacts on the community.

4. Central Permit Information Desk and One-Stop Permitting: All permits and requirements for land development should be initiated from a central location, where knowledgeable staff is trained to see their role as facilitators in the approval process, not adversaries. Staff would be cross-trained to enhance their understanding of how standards relate to one another. Planning departments should set up a one-stop shop for all development project permit applications to streamline the permit application and approval process. A designated coordinator could coordinate reviews by multiple agencies, working out any discrepancies.

5. Administrative Site-Plan Review: Allow certain decisions to be handled administratively. Rely on technical expertise of planning staff, rather than legislative review. Legislative review is subject to politics, decisions are arbitrary, and the process is unpredictable. Staff should handle issues such as the mostly technical, minor changes to submittals.

6. Define Key Terms and Requirements and Use Simple Language: Vague or legalistic language is often difficult to interpret, particularly by lay planning commissioners with little experience or familiarity with land use issues. Terms and requirements should be as clear and specific as possible, with criteria provided as a guide to implementing more flexible standards. Clear cross-references should be made to sections and standards that relate to each other. Quick-reference tables should be used wherever possible. These steps will benefit both the applicant and those who must administer and enforce the ordinance.

7. Ordinance Approval Process Checklists and Flowcharts: Ordinances should spell out the approval sequence for the various applications. Ordinances should specify the authority and responsibilities of each agency and government body involved in the approval process. Included should be where to submit them, and which agency is responsible for the final approval. Some communities provide brochures or guidebooks to the ordinance that can be given out at a central permit information desk.

8. Make Submittal Requirements Clear: Distinguish between preliminary and final plans submissions. Set out when construction can begin - after the preliminary plans are submitted or after the final plans? Clearly stating requirements will provide developers with the certainty they need.

9. Specify Time Frame for Approvals: Vague and lengthy review processes and a lack of response from municipal staff add delays that contribute unnecessarily to the cost of housing. Ordinances should specify when decisions will be made, such as 30 or 45 days after a public hearing on the project. Decisions should not be indefinitely postponed, or tabled from hearing to hearing. Ideally, the ordinance should also state that if decisions by the relevant agency are not made within the specified time limit, the application is presumed approved.

10. Pre-Application Process Conferences: Meetings with staff are effective ways to identify problems before significant resources have been invested in a project proposal. Modifications are more efficiently incorporated at the outset of the design process. Encourage developers to meet informally with planning staff to present sketch plans for a project before work is conducted. Some consider this the most effective tool for expediting the process.

11. Reduce Permit Fees and Development Costs: Local governments can enhance the relative attractiveness of development by adopting more appropriate level-of-service standards and lower development fees within designated areas.

12. Concurrent Rather Than Additive or Sequential Reviews Whenever Possible: Simultaneous reviews allow different steps in an application to proceed as a package or at least during the same time frame, thus reducing the time involved in sequential reviews. For example, the preliminary plan and rezoning applications for a planned unit development could be handled simultaneously.

13. Permit Tracking: Computerized tracking systems allow staff to advise applicants of the status of their application and more readily identify coordination problems between agencies.

14. Fast-Track Permit Procedures: Can be applied within target development areas to increase the attractiveness of the sites.

15. Rank Projects: Small and less controversial projects or particularly desirable projects (such as affordable housing) can be "fast-tracked" as administrative rather than as legislative approvals by allowing the Planning Director to review and approve them. In this way, the level of attention is commensurate with the level of impacts of the project, with valuable public and private resources devoted only to the review of projects that have a greater impact on the community. Alternatively, or in addition, the number of requirements that apply to those projects can be reduced.

16. Focus Project Review on Impacts: Ensure the negative impacts of development (noise, pollution, traffic, nuisance, or harm) on neighbors are mitigated through administrative review, while avoiding discretionary reviews by legislative bodies. Project review should not control density, layout or aesthetics unless the project is located in a special district with a clear purpose, intent or identity.

17. Eliminate Multiple Public Hearings: Often, a developer must present the same information at public hearings before several different commissions or boards. This is not only duplicative, but time-consuming and inefficient. In addition, the public does not need multiple opportunities to comment on a proposed project. A single hearing held by the Planning Commission or equivalent body can provide public perspective that can be evaluated along with other relevant criteria in deciding whether to approve or deny an application. Most developers now hold meetings with neighborhood residents as a matter of routine to solicit public input on a project proposal early on, to minimize the costs associated with redesign plans and specifications.

18. Encourage Use of Hearings Examiners: Local governments in Washington state have the option of hiring or contracting with a hearing examiner to conduct hearings in place of planning commissions, county commissioners, or city council. This allows quasi-judicial decisions free from political influence. The use of a hearing examiner is especially time-saving for routine decisions and for complex land use decisions requiring formal hearings, citizen participation, and subject matter expertise. The use of a specialized land use hearing examiner is an effective method of consolidating and coordinating multiple review processes. More information on the use of hearings examiners in Washington state .

19. Train and Certify Engineers for Inspections and Approvals: Some communities have set up programs that train and certify registered consulting engineers who then certify that development plans and construction improvements comply with local ordinance requirements. This reduces the burden on municipal staff and enhances efficiency of the inspection and approval process.

20. Time Frame for Inspection of Construction Improvements: The ordinance should state who conducts such inspections, the time frame as well as the conditions for the subsequent full or partial release of performance guarantees.

21. Combined Inspections: Although the suggestion for combined inspections appears in reports more often in the context of building inspections, it is also relevant to inspections of required site improvements.

22. Supermajority for Over-Riding Planning Commission Decisions: Local governments should presume that planning board decisions and recommendations are fair and accurate. This will strengthen the process, build certainty, and avoid unnecessary steps and wasted time in the approval process.

23. Allow and Encourage Innovative Techniques: Techniques that encourage more efficient and desirable land development should be encouraged through effective approval procedures. Many communities profess to encourage alternative site planning options but then subject applicants to ever-longer reviews and uncertain standards. Cluster development and planned unit development should be allowed as conditional uses or as overlays to existing zoning districts-not as re-zonings. Alternative lot arrangements, particularly for small lots, should be allowed. Density bonuses, cluster as a "by right" use, and expedited permit approvals can be used as incentives rather than merely allowed.