Distinguish the decisions
Land use changes, site review, infrastructure permissions and building permits answer different questions. Their sequence depends on the jurisdiction and concept. Ask the planner which decisions are discretionary, which submissions can proceed together and which require an earlier determination. SFWMD’s environmental-resource permit page illustrates a separate water-related review process and offers pre-application discussions; that meeting is a preparation step, not an issued permit.
Expose the return loops
Imagine a hypothetical concept that needs a drainage revision after an initial review. The engineer may need new survey information, and the changed layout may affect access or parking. A schedule containing only submission and approval has nowhere to show this work. Include preparation, completeness review, comments, responses and any applicable hearings as distinct activities. Do not assume every reviewer starts at the same moment or that every correction is minor.
Make timing a business assumption
Ask the relevant professionals for a documented base pathway and plausible sources of delay rather than an unsupported universal duration. Connect additional review time to consultant scope, land-control deadlines, financing assumptions and carrying costs. Identify which contractual dates need counsel’s attention before they become urgent. Keep a log of conditions attached to any actual approval, including remaining steps before construction or occupancy. The result is a decision-ready schedule with stated uncertainties, not a promise of approval or a guarantee that a hearing calendar will remain unchanged.
Sources & further reading
Take the next step
Continue the feasibility reviewGeneral information—not personalized legal, tax, investment, engineering or architectural advice.