The last correction you received
Think of the last time a plan checker came back with a comment about compliance — not a drafting error, but “this does not meet the requirement.”
- What was the requirement?
- Did you agree, or did you think they had misread the drawing?
- How did you answer — in writing, or by changing the design?
Same house, three cities, three codes
The project-information blocks from three of your own sets, side by side.
Project information, as it appears on your sheets
| Project | Zoning | Lot area | Area of work | Construction type | Occupancy |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vancouver Ave., Burlingame | R1 | 6,100 sq. ft. | 3,700 sq. ft. | Type V | R-3 |
| Wooster Ave., Belmont | R1B | 5,158 sq. ft. | 2,900 sq. ft. | Residential Tier 1 | R-3 |
| Colonial Ln., San Jose | R1-8 | 12,170 sq. ft. | 2,500 sq. ft. | Residential V-B | R-3 |
Notice what is constant and what is not. All three are single-family residential — the same kind of building, the same kind of work. Occupancy group is R-3 in all three, because that comes from the state code. But zoning is R1, R1B and R1-8, and construction type is written three different ways.
Zoning is local. Occupancy is state. Getting that distinction wrong is how you end up citing the wrong authority in a compliance argument — and a planner who spots it stops trusting the rest of your numbers.
The shape of a compliance argument
Three moves, always in this order
| Move | Does what | Example |
|---|---|---|
| 1 · Requirement | States the rule and where it comes from | The rear setback is 15 feet. |
| 2 · Evidence | Gives the number from your own drawing | The proposed wall sits 18 feet from the rear property line. |
| 3 · Conclusion | Says explicitly that they meet | The design therefore complies. |
The move designers skip is the third. It feels redundant — the numbers speak for themselves. They do not. A plan checker reading forty sets a week is looking for the sentence that says “therefore this complies,” and if it is not there they will either work it out themselves or, more likely, write you a comment asking you to confirm it.
Stating the conclusion is not padding. It is the whole point of the paragraph.
Comparing against a limit
The verbs that carry a compliance conclusion. Listen and repeat.
What do you already control?
Match each term to what it actually governs. Click the term, then its meaning.
Choose the best answer.
1. Your existing impervious surface is 2,963 SF and your proposed is 1,209 SF. What have you done?
2. A planner asks whether the design complies with the rear setback. Which answer is complete?
3. Occupancy group R-3 appears identically on all three of your sets because…
4. Which sentence would a plan checker find easiest to verify?
Argue one compliance point
Your Day One marker for this unit.
Task card
Your Silverwood Drive project. The planner asks about impervious surface.
Using only the numbers below, argue in writing that the design complies. No preparation, no template.
- Existing: aggregate concrete front entry 593 SF · asphalt driveway 1,318 SF · lower patio, staircases and landing 667 SF · flagstone patio 332 SF · aggregate concrete bedroom entry 53 SF
- Proposed: MSI Atlantic Blue paver — patio, landing, staircase 1,119 SF · artificial turf 90 SF
- Four to six sentences. Keep it.
Did you conclude?
- Did you write a sentence that actually says the design complies — or did you stop at the numbers?
- Did you give the totals, or only the line items?
- Did you give the percentage? Would it have helped?
Before the next lesson
Homework. Find the approval stamp on your Wooster Avenue set — the block the City of Belmont printed onto the drawing. Read every line of it. Bring one line you do not fully understand.