The application states seven parking spaces; no sheet shows one.
The site plan and container drawings were checked against the application forms and the pre-application letter, and they describe the site differently.
Campground permit application
A site plan and a storage container drawing set for a small tent campground, read with the permit application packet and the pre-application letter.
What the review compared
The review read a tent campground’s site plan and its storage container drawings against the permit application packet, the site plan requirements it contains and the pre-application letter. It checked each item the forms require on a site plan and each statement the applications make about the site.
Where the package disagrees
Required site plan items are missing: wells and septic systems, parking, the creek, signs and lights. The water source, the existing fire access features and the status of the campsites differ between the drawings and the applications, and the permit form has no valuation.
What to verify next
The applicant should complete the site plan to the listed requirements and make the drawings and forms describe the site the same way before submitting. This review did not enable code checking; the examples are questions for the applicant and the responsible designer.
7 selected examples from the review
Seven distinct findings, summarized for professional verification.
Wells and septic systems are not shown
No sheet shows or rules out a well or septic system within the required distance.
Why it matters: The site plan misses a listed requirement.
What to check: Show them, or state there are none.
CivilParking missing from the site plan
The application states seven parking spaces; no sheet shows a space or parking area.
Why it matters: The required parking areas cannot be checked.
What to check: Draw each space on the site plan.
CivilWater source differs from the application
Project data names a spring-fed supply; the application says guests bring their own water.
Why it matters: In a water-short area, the water analysis depends on it.
What to check: State one water source in both.
CivilCreek left off the site plan
A setback table marks the creek “not drawn”; the application points to the plan for it.
Why it matters: Its setback cannot be checked on the plan.
What to check: Draw the creek and its setback.
CivilSigns and solar lights not located
Notes describe signs and solar lights generally; the requirements ask for their location, type and height.
Why it matters: A required site plan item is missing.
What to check: Locate each sign and light with type and height.
CivilFire turnaround count and size differ
The plans show a third turnaround and a longer hammerhead than the application’s site plan.
Why it matters: Existing fire access is described two ways.
What to check: Confirm the existing features and align both plans.
CivilPermit form leaves the valuation pending
The building permit application reads “value pending”, and no page gives a valuation.
Why it matters: The form must be complete to apply.
What to check: Enter the project valuation.
GeneralReview scope and priorities
The review organized the questions by severity, discipline, and source context so the responsible designers could investigate them.
Civil and General
Check the findings with the responsible discipline designers.
High, Medium, and Low priorities
Selected examples retain their assigned priority.
Coordination and completeness within the set
This review checked the documents against one another. No code check was enabled.
Findings connected to their source context
Groundbook links each finding to the sheets it came from so the responsible designer can confirm or dismiss it.
Potential impacts describe the issue type. They are not verified outcomes from this project.
Follow the information across the complete set
Groundbook reads the documents you upload and reports where they disagree, where a reference does not resolve, and where a required value is absent.
See how a full set is reviewed or how interfaces are coordinated.
- 1Map the complete set
Identify sheets, disciplines, details, schedules, and notes.
- 2Connect repeated information
Follow tags, references, and requirements wherever they reappear.
- 3Check coordination and completeness
Compare the documents and identify missing or conflicting information.
- 4Return findings for verification
Organize potential issues by severity, discipline, and supporting context.
Questions for professional verification
The output supports the responsible designers as they review the source documents and decide what needs to change.
What this result means
- Groundbook surfaced potential issues for professional review.
- Severity helps prioritize which questions to investigate.
- The findings describe coordination and completeness questions in the uploaded set.
- Each finding includes source context for verification.
What it does not mean
- Every potential finding is a confirmed error or violation.
- The project was unsafe, unbuildable, or ultimately noncompliant.
- Groundbook replaced the responsible professionals or authority.
- A correction was made, or any cost or delay was avoided.
About this review
Is this a real review?
Based on a Groundbook review completed in October 2026. Findings are summarized.
Are these findings confirmed defects?
No. Each one is a potential issue for the responsible designer to verify against the source documents. Groundbook reports what the documents say and where they disagree. It does not make design decisions, certify compliance, or replace the authority having jurisdiction.
How long did the review take?
Turnaround runs from 20 minutes to 24 hours depending on project size.
Was a code check included?
No code check was enabled for this review. It covered coordination and completeness within the set. Code checking is available: Groundbook reads the building codes that governments publish online and uses licensed codes only where a license allows it. You can upload a copy you’re licensed to use.
Can I see a full report?
Yes. The sample plan review report shows all 79 findings from one review of a drawing set and its specifications, with the cited excerpts.
Continue from the case study
Explore the source-linked examples in the sample plan review report, or browse every published case study.
Give the next drawing set a connected first pass
Upload the project, choose the checks that matter, and receive structured potential findings with source context.