Mason resident says permit review took 10 months, urges formal appeal and process changes

Jim Byram, a Mason resident and business owner, told the City Council on Nov. 5 that his commercial building-permit application, begun in January 2025, has taken about 10 months and gone through repeated rounds of plan-review letters and additional inspector questions.

"I started the process around January 2025. It's been 10 months," Byram said, describing repeated plan-review letters and requests for corrections. He said Meridian Township—s inspecting agency and its lead inspector, Tim Schmidt, told him premanufactured changes to allow a grain-silo-style structure to be occupied "was gonna be a challenge at best." Byram said the project is engineered with steel columns and beams, a poured concrete floor and concrete masonry-unit (CMU) walls but that the inspector kept asking further questions of his engineer.

Byram said his engineer provided updated drawings and confirmation of reengineering and inspections, but the inspector called the engineer multiple times to ask further questions, including how he would separate fire between the shop and the office. "He has now he asked for an engineer. So I had the whole building reengineered... My engineer told him sent a letter saying I've reviewed all the drawings. We have updated the drawings to make my satisfaction. ... Why is this inspector calling my engineer 5 times now asking different questions?" Byram asked.

Byram also cited local examples he said demonstrate long permitting timelines, saying a permit for a car-wash sign took four months and that a local welding business abandoned an addition after repeated permit attempts. He urged the council to "change Mason" and try a new permitting process that gives clearer, faster plan-review responses.

Mayor Whipple, responding during the public-comment period, told Byram the city has a formal avenue for challenging inspector decisions: the building code board of appeals. Whipple said the board is the proper, written process for documenting disagreements over code interpretation and that council members do not have authority to direct a certified building inspector—s professional judgments. "The only thing we can do is fire them, hire a new one," Whipple said, adding that even a city manager could not make an inspector change a professional determination.

Whipple and other council members urged Byram to pursue the appeals process and to formalize any alleged mistakes by the inspector through that board. Council members also acknowledged that a broader change, such as taking inspections in-house or contracting differently, would require study, budget action or a formal review and would not happen immediately.

Byram said he planned to pursue the board of appeals. The city manager and council indicated they would consider longer-term process reviews through the budget or formal review processes if warranted.

Clarifying details from Byram—s remarks: he said the application began in January 2025, he estimated the elapsed time at about 10 months, his engineer was contacted multiple times (which Byram quantified as five calls), and he referenced Meridian Township and inspector Tim Schmidt by name. Byram described structural details (steel columns and beams, 6-inch poured concrete floor, CMU walls) as noted in his plans.

Why it matters: protracted plan reviews and unclear inspector communication can delay local business investment and construction, imposing costs on applicants and potentially reducing development activity. The council reiterated the formal appeals avenue and said technical or systemic changes would require formal study and budgetary action.