Permitting must keep applicant markups separate from the official site plan during review. Which layer strategy fits?
Select an answer to reveal the explanation.
Short Explanation
Applicant sticky notes go on a review sheet above the stamped official plan—not scratched into the plan itself. A stronger session layer keeps markups isolatable and removable after the hearing.
Full Explanation
Review markups must stay separable from official municipal source of truth. Permitting that must keep applicant markups separate from the official site plan during review should put applicant markups on a session/review layer above the official site-plan layers. A stronger review layer isolates temporary applicant comments so they can be accepted, rejected, or removed without rewriting the stamped official plan.
Overwriting the official site plan in place with applicant comments fails conceptually: it corrupts the official record and mixes proposal noise with approved geometry. Deleting the official site plan while markups are open fails because reviewers lose the baseline they must compare against. Merging markups into the manufacturer hydrant payload fails because unrelated payload assets are not a review overlay mechanism and pollutes shared vendor content.
Exam caveat: session/review layers above official plans isolate markups; overwrite/delete/merge-into-payload destroy clean review. Operational check: load official site-plan layers, author applicant notes on a review layer, present both in hearing view, then remove or mute the review layer and confirm the official plan is unchanged and still authoritative.