HR Green Rate Fee Survey Report - Manual (Page 13)

12
Time to Complete the Review:
The questionnaire also delved into two questions concerning the timing involved in the review and
approval/denial of a SDP. In the first of these questions, respondents were given four time ranges and
asked which timeline is
“generally” consistent with co
mpleting the internal review of the SDP. The table
below summarizes the findings.
Time Range Percentage (number of responses)
Less than One Week 8% (17)
One to Four Weeks 67% (149)
Four to Eight Weeks 21% (47)
Greater than Eight Weeks 8% (17)
Time to Approve Site Plans:
While the questionnaire did not account for those SDPs that can be approved administratively,
respondents were asked to cite the time required to approve a SDP following staff review. Although it
was not explicitly stated, the nature of the question implied that the approval was subject to a third-party
such as a planning and zoning commission, city council, etc. The results are summarized as follows.
Time Range Percentage (number of responses)
Less than 30 Days 54% (118)
30 Days to 60 Days 42% (91)
Greater than 60 Days 6% (14)
Fee Comparison:
The principal purpose of this study is to provide some insight and a basis for comparing fees and fee
types that are associated with the Site Development Plan (SDP) review process. Exhibit D provides a
detailed summary of findings. While the purpose of this report is not necessarily to analyze the results
of responding communities, the tables and sections summarized in Exhibit D are summarized in a
manner that allows the reader to associate findings with the state of origin and the size (based on
population) of the responding communities. The narrative that follows provides an overview of the
findings and some points of clarification concerning the results.
The questionnaire cited several review procedures common to the SDP review process. Responding
communities were asked to highlight current fees (2011) that are applied in those situations. Two
hundred eleven (211) responses were received from various communities.
Being that the submission of fee data was subject to an open ended response, some of the information
submitted required some interpretation. In these situations, the authors included footnotes and related
narrative information to add transparency and make the results more understandable. In addition,
some respondents cited websites where fees could be accessed. The data tables do not include this
material.