Pre-approved housing plans speed permits

Summary#

The Pre-Approved Housing Plans Act of 2026 would create a program within the Department of Buildings (DOB); it does not create a separate agency. Its stated goal is to make small-scale housing development more predictable and affordable. The bill is introduced and is not law; passage is uncertain.

  • DOB must make permit-ready plans available for rowhouses, rowhouses with an accessory dwelling unit, duplexes, triplexes and multifamily buildings of up to 8 units. It may add other housing types.
  • DOB must develop or competitively procure standardized plans and may accept private plans for review and approval. It must publish each plan’s construction, zoning and site requirements, identify allowed modifications, and set up a process for qualified architects, engineers, builders and property owners to adapt plans to specific sites.
  • Developers would not have to use the plans. A qualifying permit application using a plan would be eligible for expedited review, but DOB may still require site-specific review for health, safety or zoning compliance.
  • DOB must set rules for application documents, allowed deviations, review timelines and when site conditions or major deviations disqualify a project from expedited review.
  • Plans must be updated or removed if a code or legal change materially affects them. A project approved under a plan before a later code change would not have to be redesigned solely because the plan changed, unless another law requires it.
  • DOB must report annually to the Council, starting one year after the program is established, on plan use, permits, review times, estimated design-cost savings, housing units created and recommendations.

What it means for you#

  • Builders, developers and property owners: You could choose a pre-approved plan and, if your application meets DOB’s conditions, qualify for expedited review. The bill does not guarantee a permit or remove site-specific checks.
  • Architects and engineers: You could take part in adapting plans or developing and submitting plans. No one would receive an exclusive right to use a plan.
  • Residents and taxpayers: The bill does not directly change housing eligibility, rents, property taxes or building requirements. It creates a permitting and plan-access program; the bill does not guarantee that it will produce more homes or lower housing costs.

Money#

No cost estimate is available in the supplied material.

  • DOB must develop or procure plans, run the program and report to the Council. The bill gives no staffing or spending estimate.
  • Plans developed by DOB must be available without charge, except for reasonable reproduction or processing costs.
  • For plans not publicly owned, the bill allows a charge to be passed through to the plan’s designer. If a designer retains liability, an additional charge must be allowed that is at least enough to cover standard liability-insurance premiums. The bill does not clearly explain who initially pays these charges or how they are collected.
  • A private plan submitter cannot be required to accept liability for a plan’s use without compensation, including enough to cover standard increases in insurance premiums.

What is unclear#

  • The bill leaves details to DOB rules, including the review timeline, required documents, permitted deviations and when a project leaves expedited review.
  • It does not set a deadline for establishing the program or say when the rules must take effect.
  • It does not define terms such as “reasonable” costs or “material” changes, or explain how DOB will decide whether a plan fits a particular site.
  • The bill does not explain how the plan charges and liability compensation will work in practice.
  • The bill text says previously approved plans may be reused until the next building-code adoption; it does not set the three-year reuse period described in the supplied background letter.

Case for#

  • A possible argument for the bill is that repeating some design and technical work through standardized plans could reduce costs and make small projects easier to plan.
  • Expedited review for qualifying applications could shorten permitting times, while DOB’s power to require site-specific review preserves checks for safety and zoning.
  • The program is optional, and DOB can add housing types if it considers production needs, costs, zoning and standardization feasibility.
  • Annual reporting would give the Council information on use, review times, estimated design savings and housing units created.

Case against#

  • Standard plans may not fit a particular site or zoning conditions. DOB can still require site-specific review, so the bill does not ensure faster review in every case.
  • The bill leaves important operating details to future rules and does not set a deadline for those rules or for starting the program.
  • The required work and reporting may cost public money, but the supplied material gives no estimate of staffing or total cost.
  • The fee and liability provisions do not fully explain who pays charges or how designers and users would resolve liability.