open-data-standards
additional recommended data points
When a permit is filed for specific condo within a property it will often reference the parent parcel number rather than the specific tax lot. Would be very helpful to maintain tax-lot level data throughout this information
Rather than just requesting the tax lot that a permit has been filed for we should request the specific unit (apt or office) that the work is being completed in. With information this granular we can tell if and how the layout in the most recent COO is being altered. Alternatively the floor the work is being done on is very helpful.
@coshman Thanks for adding this observation. I've added a couple of labels to help get discussion started on this.
Do others have thoughts? /cc: @eddietejeda @axtheset
This topic did come up in our early conversations, which is why we included Housing Units, however, that does not address this issue. Address information will likely pick up unit numbers as required by providing address information, but perhaps we need to make that more explicit?
Similarly, of particular importance when there are multiple buildings on a lot some, some municipalities report lot level information and others report building level info. For example, LA reports building-level property class, improvement SF, etc... and NYC reports lot-level property class and SF. It can be very difficult to determine which building a permit is relevant to when the unique ID used is the parcel number and a subjectively selected one of any number of city recognized addresses.
The unique ID called for in the standard is the permit number and not the parcel number. Does that solve for this issue?
Hi Aditya, unfortunately I do not think this will solve the issue. Ideally we would always be able to associate a permit with a tax lot and specific building / unit on the tax lot as an extra layer of verification, e.g., work on the 8th floor can't be done if no building exists on the indicated lot.
Whatever everyone decides is fine by me, just want to make sure we go into this with eyes wide open. Do we want the standard to be tax-lot specific, building specific, or unit specific? Has there been any discussion of this?
@coshman Thanks for bringing this to our attention. I don't recall why the decision was made to not include a dedicated field for "lots." If anyone recalls why, please share. I think we should definitely revisit this issue in a future release.
I'm new at this, but wondering if an add-on numbering sequence might suffice. For example, 940440780000 (tax map key) refers to a specific parcel. When/if it becomes a condo, the last 4 digits (0000) are used to identify the lot number. That way it's easy to identify what's condo'd and to extract/exclude those (non-zero) items.
Have a suggestion re: PermitClassMapped. Since the International Building Code is widely adopted -- see map below -- wondering if there has been discussion to include the predominant Occupancy Classification (e.g., A-1, B, R-3, U)? Would allow standardized granularity and capability to how the data could be used.
