Contact Try PermitX

How it works

You already drew everything it needs.

PermitX is built around one idea: everything a reviewer will flag is already visible in the drawings you have. The work is reading them against the right text, and that is the part worth automating.

PDF inRanked report outMinutes, not weeks

The whole thing

You send it, we check it, you get it back.

That is the entire process, and it is worth saying plainly before drawing it. There is no intake call, no scoping exercise and nothing to configure. Here is what each of the three steps actually does.

  1. 01 Upload

    Send everything the permit asks for.

    The drawings as DWG, PDF or DXF, and with them the write-ups, reports and application forms the permit requires. Tell it the municipality and the kind of work while you are there, because the address is what decides which rules get read against the set.

    New submission
    01Province
    Ontario
    02Municipality
    St. Catharines
    03Project type
    New build, detached
    04Work category
    Full permit set
    05Location
    St. Catharines, ON

    Drop the whole submission

    Drawings as DWG, PDF or DXF, plus the write-ups, reports and application forms that go with them. Whatever you were already going to file.

    • A01 Site plan and zoning summary Read
    • A03 Ground and second floor plans Read
    • A05 Proposed elevations Read
    • APP Permit application, signed Read
    • DOC Energy efficiency report Read
    • A07 Foundation and framing details Reading
  2. 02 We check it

    It gets read against the rules for that address.

    The Ontario Building Code on every set, and the municipal zoning bylaw where it is loaded, so the review is specific to where you are filing rather than generic. Nothing is asked of you here. This is the part that used to be a plans examiner finding it six weeks later.

    permit-set
    Zoning by-law St. Catharines Low density residential Loaded
    Building code Ontario Division B, Part 9 Loaded
    • Maximum lot coverage 40% Zoning
    • Minimum front yard 6.0 m Zoning
    • Minimum side yard 1.2 m Zoning
    • Maximum building height 10.5 m Zoning
    • Bedroom egress opening 0.35 m² Code
    • Garage to dwelling separation Required Code
    Resolved for this address Read from the municipality's current documents at the time of the review
  3. 03 Results back

    You get the list back, against the drawing.

    Every detected issue ranked by how likely it is to stop the application, each one pointing at the sheet it came off rather than described in a paragraph, with the missing notation and calculations filled in where they can be. The six findings below are the real output for one set.

    Step 03
    No size against W4
    The finding, on the sheet it came off

A worked example

What came back for one finished set.

A two storey house in St. Catharines. Read them in order and a pattern shows up: not one is a design decision. Every one is something the drawings never said, which is exactly the category of problem that costs six weeks to discover at a municipal counter.

Detected issues

Two storey house · St. Catharines, Ontario

6
  1. 1 Missing window sizes on basement bedroom plans, so egress compliance cannot be confirmed. Egress
  2. 2 No fire separation detail between the attached garage and the main living space. Fire separation
  3. 3 Beam sizes are shown, but with no material spec such as species and grade or steel type. Structure
  4. 4 Foundation wall detail lacks reinforcement, with no rebar size or spacing given. Foundation
  5. 5 Roof plan is missing slope notation, which is required for drainage and compliance. Roof
  6. 6 Site plan is missing lot coverage and gross floor area calculations, so zoning compliance is unclear. Zoning
Sheet Proposed south elevation, three eighths of an inch to the foot, drawn by an Ontario design studio

The same six, on the sheet

Every finding, at the place on the drawing where it is missing.

This is sheet A05 of that set, at the scale it was drawn: one unit on screen is one inch of building. Open any mark to read what the sheet says at that point. Four of the six were returned against other sheets and say so, because marking them here without saying it is the one thing on this page a plans examiner would be right to challenge.

permit-set-A05.pdf PermitX · reading sheet A05
7 marks

Seven marks. Six are things that are not on the drawing. One is the sheet checking out against itself.

Mark 1 Egress Measurable

Basement window W4

On the sheet
W4 · HOPR · the size cell on the schedule is a blank rule
Read from
PermitX returned this against the basement bedroom plans, not this elevation. It is marked here at the window it concerns, and at the schedule row that should carry its size.
The rule
A bedroom below grade needs a window somebody can get out of, and an examiner confirms that by measuring the opening. If the size is not called out, there is nothing to measure and nothing to confirm. OBC 9.9 Section level. The clause number is not printed until somebody has read it against the Code in force.
The arithmetic
  1. W4, off the schedule type HOPR
  2. W4 opening width blank
  3. W4 opening height blank
  4. An egress opening is checked by measuring it and there is nothing here to measure
The verdict
Cannot be confirmed The window is drawn and it is scheduled. The one thing needed to check it against anything, the opening size, is the one thing not written down.
PermitX returned this on the real set

Missing window sizes on basement bedroom plans, so egress compliance cannot be confirmed.

The rule is in our words. The reading is ours. The finding is the product’s.

Mark 2 Separation Notational

Garage to dwelling wall

On the sheet
The shared wall at the end of the main mass · no assembly called up
Read from
This sheet, A05. Nothing cross-referenced.
The rule
The wall and ceiling between a garage and the living space beside it is a rated assembly, and the rating is shown by specifying the assembly. An examiner is not looking for a thicker wall on the elevation; they are looking for the note. OBC 9.10 Section level. The clause number is not printed until somebody has read it against the Code in force.
The verdict
Not shown on this sheet The wall is right there in the elevation. What is not there, on this sheet or in an assembly schedule, is the note saying what it is made of.
PermitX returned this on the real set

No fire separation detail between the attached garage and the main living space.

The rule is in our words. The reading is ours. The finding is the product’s.

Mark 3 Notation Notational

Beam specification

On the sheet
GENERAL NOTES · nine ruled stubs, one of them empty
Read from
The beam sizes are on the framing plans. The specification that would make those sizes mean anything belongs in this notes column, which is where the absence is visible.
The rule
A beam size on its own does not describe a beam. Species and grade, or a steel designation, is what makes the size mean a load. Without it the number is a dimension rather than a specification. OBC 9.23 Section level. The clause number is not printed until somebody has read it against the Code in force.
The verdict
Not shown on this sheet A ruled line with nothing on it is what an unanswered note looks like on a real set. It is also the hardest kind of gap to see, because a blank line looks like the drawing rather than like a mistake.
PermitX returned this on the real set

Beam sizes are shown, but with no material spec such as species and grade or steel type.

The rule is in our words. The reading is ours. The finding is the product’s.

Mark 4 Notation Notational

Foundation reinforcement

On the sheet
T.O. FOOTING · the dashed line under the building, no bar called up
Read from
PermitX returned this against the foundation wall detail. The elevation is where the footing line is, so that is where it is marked.
The rule
Where a foundation wall is reinforced, the bar size and its spacing are part of the detail. A detail that shows the wall but not the steel in it cannot be checked, and it cannot be built from either. OBC 9.15 Section level. The clause number is not printed until somebody has read it against the Code in force.
The verdict
Not shown on this sheet The footing is located and levelled. The steel in the wall above it is neither sized nor spaced anywhere in the set.
PermitX returned this on the real set

Foundation wall detail lacks reinforcement, with no rebar size or spacing given.

The rule is in our words. The reading is ours. The finding is the product’s.

Mark 5 Notation Notational

Roof slope

On the sheet
The main ridge · no slope figure beside it
Read from
PermitX returned this against the roof plan. The ridge on this elevation is where a slope triangle or a figure would normally be lettered.
The rule
Slope decides what the roof may be covered in and where the water goes. It is notated, not scaled: an examiner reads the figure beside the ridge rather than putting a protractor on the drawing. OBC 9.26 Section level. The clause number is not printed until somebody has read it against the Code in force.
The verdict
Not shown on this sheet The roof is drawn at a slope. Drawn is not notated, and an examiner reads the figure rather than measuring the drawing.
PermitX returned this on the real set

Roof plan is missing slope notation, which is required for drainage and compliance.

The rule is in our words. The reading is ours. The finding is the product’s.

Mark 6 Notation Measurable

Lot coverage

On the sheet
AREA SUMMARY · ground 1,248 SF · second 1,106 SF · garage 402 SF · gross 2,354 SF
Read from
PermitX returned this against the site plan. The area summary in this titleblock is the block that would carry the coverage figure, and it is the block that does not.
The rule
Coverage is the building footprint over the lot area, as a percentage, against a maximum the municipality sets. Both figures have to be on the drawings for the division to be done at all. Zoning by-law The maximum is municipal and differs by zone, so there is no province-wide number to print here.
The arithmetic
  1. Ground floor, off the area summary 1,248 sq ft
  2. Garage, off the area summary 402 sq ft
  3. Assumption Footprint, ours: ground plus garage, both at grade 1,650 sq ft = 153.3 m²
  4. Lot area not on this sheet
  5. Coverage is footprint over lot area so it cannot be worked out here
The verdict
Cannot be computed here either Coverage is footprint over lot area. The footprint is on this sheet. The lot area is not, so this instrument cannot do the division. That is exactly the dead end the reviewer hit.
PermitX returned this on the real set

Site plan is missing lot coverage and gross floor area calculations, so zoning compliance is unclear.

The rule is in our words. The reading is ours. The finding is the product’s.

Mark 7 Arithmetic Measurable

The dimension strings

On the sheet
14'-10" + 16'-0" + 15'-0" against an overall of 45'-10"
Read from
This sheet, A05. Nothing cross-referenced.
The rule
The parts of a dimension string have to add up to the overall, and both have to agree with what is drawn. This is arithmetic on the drawing and it needs no regulation, no municipality and nobody’s permission. The sheet itself
The arithmetic
  1. String 1, off the sheet 14'-10" = 178 in
  2. String 2, off the sheet 16'-0" = 192 in
  3. String 3, off the sheet 15'-0" = 180 in
  4. The three added 550 in = 45'-10"
  5. The overall string, off the sheet 45'-10" = 550 in
  6. And what is actually drawn 550 units at one inch to the unit = 45'-10"
The verdict
Clears This one is a pass, and it is the only mark here that is arithmetic rather than an absence. The sheet’s own dimensions agree with each other, and with what is drawn.

Arithmetic off the drawing. No regulation involved, and nothing here to take our word for.

Proposed south elevation, sheet A05, three eighths of an inch to the foot, drawn for this page and not a client's file. One user unit of the drawing is one inch of building, checked against all six of its own dimension strings at build time. The findings are the ones a real review returned.

What it reads

Measured off the sheets, not assumed.

A generic checklist tells you that setbacks exist. A pre screen tells you that your rear yard is 5.9 metres against a 7.5 metre minimum, and which sheet it read that from. The second one is the only version worth acting on.

Interior alterationNew buildAddition or extensionDemolition ResidentialCommercialIndustrial
Hands drawing on a sheet at a desk with a pen, a wooden scale rule laid across the drawing and a rolled up set beside it.
The input Every finding is read off a sheet like this one
Dimensions
Dimension strings, and the clearances that were drawn but never dimensioned
Setbacks
Distance from each lot line to the building face, checked against the zone
Envelope
Lot coverage, gross floor area, building height and storey count
Egress
Exit count, travel distance, corridor and aisle widths, door swing direction
Occupancy
Classification and occupant load, plus everything that scales with them
Barrier free
Path of travel, clearances and turning space
Consistency
Sheets that contradict each other, and drawings referenced but not supplied

The severity ladder

Three levels, so the report is a work list.

A hundred undifferentiated notes is noise. Ranking is what turns a list of observations into an order of operations, and it is the same ladder you see inside the report itself.

Critical

Will be refused or held at intake. Fix before you submit.

Major

Almost certainly comes back as a review comment.

Minor

Worth cleaning up. Cheap now, annoying later.

Where the line is

What it does not do, said out loud.

A compliance tool that overstates itself is worse than no tool, because you stop checking. So here are the limits.

It reads what you give it

A finding can only come from the drawings. If a dimension is not on the sheet, PermitX flags that it is missing rather than inventing a value for it. That is a finding in its own right, and usually a real one.

It is a pre screen, not a stamp

PermitX tells you what a reviewer is likely to return. It does not approve anything, it does not replace your engineer or architect, and the municipality remains the authority.

Coverage is stated, not implied

Full zoning coverage exists for specific municipalities. Everywhere else in Ontario returns an Ontario Building Code report today, and we say so on the coverage page rather than in a footnote.

The assistant can answer questions about any finding, and about the code and bylaw generally, at Quoto Build.

Find the problems while they are still cheap to fix.

PermitX is delivered through Quoto Build. Open it, upload a set, and see what a reviewer would see.

Open Quoto Build Check coverage