“How can I build on this plot as fast as possible?” he asked the architect in our preparation call before he agreed to go ahead with the purchase deal.
I liked the approach, and I liked the architect's answer that, according to the plans applicable to the plot, she assumed the municipality would require a full planning process here.
“Find me a way to avoid a cumbersome process that will take two years,” he asked. “I want to get going and finish this project in the minimum time.”
The architect came up with an idea of how, in her view, the process could be shortened and a planning process avoided. The local team, headed by the local partner, expressed reservations about the route.
The proposed route was not ruled out by them; they only raised reservations and concerns about situations that in their view might stall the process proposed by the architect, and thereby delay the entire project.
The client was enthusiastic about the idea and asked to proceed. The local partner and I drafted a letter to the client setting out the concerns and reservations about the route, but we got on board, together with the entire local hive built by the client for the project, to “move mountains”.
The solution was to divide the project into sub-projects and each time submit applications for building permits only for the minimum number of units set by law that does not require detailed planning.
We began implementation immediately, accompanying the planning team's work throughout. The first applications for permits were submitted. The client started pushing to submit the applications for the next phase already. Here the local partner joined the conversation and asked to wait until the building permits were received. He expressed concern that someone at the municipality would wake up, understand what we intended to do and stop even the issuing of the first permits, demanding comprehensive and detailed planning for the project. In a Zoom call with the client, the local partner and I managed to persuade him to wait and not charge ahead.
We all waited with bated breath for the building permits for the first phase, which were delayed slightly because of local elections in the country, as we had to wait for the old mayor, re-elected for another term, to take office in order to sign the permits. A week after receiving the permit, while the contractor was starting to pour concrete on site, the application for building permits for the second phase was submitted.
The tension was at its peak…
And then I got a phone call from the architect.
She had been summoned to a meeting with the mayor and the city architect. I asked that the local partner accompany her to the meeting.
“They caught on to us and to what the architect tried to do,” the local partner told me as soon as he came out of the meeting. I understood from the rest of the conversation that they did not like this attempt to bypass the planning procedures at all. They threatened that they would not issue the second round of building permits. After the overall concept was presented to them, and after the architect elaborated, described and showed visualizations of the entire project, they softened a little. Questions were asked. They asked for a number of changes. They asked to impose a public obligation on the client, to build a kindergarten for the municipality as part of the project, as their condition for turning a blind eye and continuing to issue permits.
The local partner agreed (without obtaining the client's approval), on condition that the client would build the kindergarten for the municipality on land allocated by it and not on part of his own private land. The architect agreed to some of the requested changes after discussion with the city architect.
How do you handle the planning of your projects?
Stories are based on real situations, with identifying details changed. Not legal advice.
Translated from the Hebrew original. עברית