How to Respond to DPP Plan Check Comments: A Practical Guide for Architects
Receiving a DPP plan check comment letter is not a failure — it is a normal part of the permit process. What determines whether your project takes one more round or three is the quality of the response. Plan checkers process high volumes of resubmittals; a response that makes their job easy moves faster than one that requires follow-up questions.
What a comment letter is — and what it is not
A DPP plan check comment letter (sometimes called a correction sheet) is an itemized list of deficiencies in your submitted documents. Each item typically includes: the item number, the sheet or location on the drawings where the issue was found, the code section cited, and a description of what is required.
A comment letter is not a conversation starter. It is a checklist. When you respond to it, you are demonstrating that every item on the checklist has been resolved. If your response addresses 11 of 12 comments and the 12th comment gets a general response that does not directly resolve the issue, the resubmittal will come back again.
Plan checkers are not required to identify new issues during a resubmittal review that they did not identify on the first check. However, if a correction creates a new problem — for example, if moving a wall to satisfy a setback comment creates a non-compliant room dimension — the plan checker may flag the new issue. This is not unusual and is not a sign of bad faith.
How to format your response
DPP does not have a mandatory response format, but there is a structure that works consistently:
- 1.Cover letter. A brief letter on firm letterhead identifying the project (address, permit number, plan check number), the date of the original comment letter, and a statement that all comments have been addressed. List the comment numbers addressed.
- 2.Comment-by-comment response table. A table or numbered list that reproduces each comment and provides a written response. The response should state specifically what was changed and where on the drawings the change can be found (sheet number, detail number, or general note number).
- 3.Revised drawings. Resubmit the full drawing set, not just the revised sheets, unless DPP has specifically authorized a partial resubmittal. Use a revision cloud and delta to identify all changes from the previous submission.
- 4.Supporting documentation. If a comment requires supporting documentation (updated energy compliance report, structural calculation revision, soils report), include it as a separate attachment referenced in the response table.
Responding to the most common comment types
What DPP wants to see: The corrected setback dimension shown on the site plan with a clear dimension line from the structure to the property line. The dimension must meet or exceed the LUO minimum for the district. If you are relying on a prevailing setback, document the prevailing condition with a table of existing front-yard dimensions for properties on the same block face.
Response language: "Comment addressed. Site plan revised on Sheet A-1 to show 15′-0″ front yard setback (15′ min. required per ROH §21-3.50, District R-7.5, Table 21-3.4). See revision cloud, Sheet A-1."
What DPP wants to see: The general notes updated with the correct code edition, occupancy classification, construction type, and sprinkler determination. These should all be consistent with each other and with the plans.
Response language: "Comment addressed. General notes on Sheet A-0 updated to reflect: IBC 2018 as adopted by ROH Chapter 16; Occupancy Classification R-3; Construction Type V-B; Non-sprinklered. See revision cloud, Sheet A-0."
What DPP wants to see: A revised ResCheck or energy compliance report that matches the assemblies shown on the drawings. If the wall section shows R-19 insulation and the ResCheck was calculated with R-13, the ResCheck must be recalculated with R-19 — or the wall section must be revised to match the ResCheck.
Response language: "Comment addressed. Revised ResCheck report enclosed (dated [date]). Wall section on Sheet A-5 revised to match ResCheck input: 2x6 stud wall, R-21 batt insulation, per ResCheck Assembly W-1. See revision cloud, Sheet A-5."
How to handle it: If you believe the plan checker has misread the code or misapplied it to your project, you have the right to respond with a written code interpretation argument. Be specific: quote the code section, explain your reading, and explain why your design complies under that reading. Do not simply say "we disagree" — provide the argument. If the plan checker maintains their position, you may request a supervisory review.
Mistakes that trigger a third round
- Partial responses. Addressing 11 of 12 comments and leaving the 12th with "see revised drawings" without a specific citation will send the submission back.
- Revision clouds that do not match the response. If the response says Sheet A-2 was revised and there is no revision cloud on A-2, the plan checker will flag it.
- Creating new issues while fixing old ones. Moving a wall to fix a setback comment that results in a corridor narrower than the IBC minimum will generate a new comment. Review all cascading effects before resubmitting.
- Inconsistency between sheets. A dimension corrected on the site plan but not on the floor plan, or a general note updated but not the detail, will come back.
- Not including all required documentation. If the response references an updated structural calculation that is not included in the resubmittal package, it will be returned.
Draft your DPP response in minutes, not days.
Paste a DPP plan-check comment into Ikena Permit and get a professional AE-voiced response draft — anchored to ROH citations where applicable. You review, edit, and send.
Request early access →Published by Ikena Permit, a DBA of Ikena Design & Build LLC, Honolulu, HI. Informational only. DPP procedures are subject to change — verify current resubmittal requirements with DPP directly. Last reviewed May 2026.