Ohio developers face a permitting problem unrelated to market demand or project quality, according to Brian Lorenz, Director of Planning and Permitting for the Ohio House of Representatives. Instead, Lorenz says, developers must navigate overlapping jurisdictions that require the same permit applications to be submitted multiple times—often with conflicting requirements that can make projects economically infeasible before construction begins.
“If I go into Miami Dade for a permit, I’m going in to Miami Dade, and then I’ve got to go into Durham, which is Department of Environmental Resource Management,” Lorenz explains, referencing his experience across nine states and nine Canadian provinces. “I’m actually doing the same permit twice with two jurisdictions, and I may have the same plans, but I may get different comments that are going to conflict with one another, and there’s no need for that.”
Lorenz, currently the only planner serving in Ohio’s General Assembly, argues that this duplicative review process is more than an inefficient bureaucracy—it effectively selects which developers can participate in the market based on their ability to absorb regulatory costs, not on the merits of their projects.
The Hidden Cost of Regulatory Complexity
The permitting bottleneck Lorenz describes creates a disadvantage that does not appear in initial financial models. He says that when companies compare Ohio to neighboring states for site selection, decisions increasingly depend on two questions: “How much is this going to cost me, and how long is it going to take me to get it, and how does that affect my sales weeks?”
This dynamic hits mid-market developers and smaller projects hardest. Without significant capital reserves, these groups cannot withstand extended approval timelines. “We’re pricing people out of the marketplace because of the undue regulations,” Lorenz says. As a result, only the largest developers—those able to cover higher costs and longer delays—remain competitive, regardless of whether their projects best serve community needs.
The problem is more than just delays. When developers receive conflicting feedback from overlapping jurisdictions reviewing identical plans, they face expensive redesigns that can undermine project viability. A project that is feasible with a six-month approval window can become financially impossible if regulatory back-and-forth stretches that to eighteen months.
Lorenz attributes this to “administrative bloat”—layers of review that do not improve outcomes but do create barriers to entry. “We can’t get out of our own way. We have way too many regulations, whether it be from a reviewing standpoint, a timeline compression standpoint, or a permitting standpoint,” he says.
Why Streamlining Matters Beyond Speed
Lorenz is not arguing against regulation itself, but against redundant and complex processes that offer no public benefit. He points out that comprehensive plans and zoning codes already establish community standards, and that additional studies and repeated evaluations often add unnecessary obstacles once those frameworks are in place.
“We have zoning codes and comprehensive plans that are established. There’s really no need to go out and make extra studies and put undue burdens on things when they’re approved from a land use perspective,” Lorenz says. His legislative work focuses on creating predictability in the approval process—a quality that benefits both communities and developers.
“When we have predictability, that lessens lawsuits, referendums, and that saves the communities and the developers time and money,” Lorenz says. He has introduced House Bill 361 to establish more explicit ground rules for development approval without denying property rights or eliminating community input.
The broader impact is on the types of projects that get built. Lorenz says the current regulatory structure often makes adaptive reuse and infill development—projects communities typically want—more difficult to approve than greenfield development. This creates what he calls a “perverse incentive structure” that encourages sprawl over smarter growth.
A Legislative Solution
Lorenz’s approach focuses on removing unnecessary regulatory hurdles while preserving essential safety and community standards. “What we need to do is really streamline that review process and simplify it. It’s too complex,” he says.
House Bill 361 aims to address this by establishing clearer approval pathways and reducing duplicative reviews. The bill is designed to create consensus around development processes, laying out ground rules that provide clarity for all parties involved.
For institutional investors considering the Midwest, Lorenz argues that Ohio can offer a competitive advantage through regulatory streamlining. “We can do things a lot better with a lot less workforce, and that puts more money in Ohioans’ pockets,” he says, framing the issue as both a development challenge and an economic competitiveness question.
Whether other states follow Ohio’s lead in addressing permitting complexity may depend on how quickly development communities connect regulatory burden with market participation. According to Lorenz, the current system does more than slow projects—it determines who can afford to develop at all.
