Maybe he should have started with hiring an engineer?
And a lawyer at this stage is about as useful to the project as a condom vending machine at the Vatican.
As to the intended use of the building: the devil is in the details. I got an inkling from reading the article, but that’s judging a book from its cover.
Building to code is not that hard. You can even deviate from codes if there are good reasons to do so.
I am wildly speculating here, but 30 years in the field say that his plans were crap because he tried to save money in the planning stage. In other words, he didn’t get a competent architect/engineer because those want to get paid an adequate fee. When that didn’t work, he got someone for the ugly and thankless business of trying to fix something that was ill conceived from the get-go, if possible on the cheap as well. And without trying to work together with the Review Board, too - the “hiring a lawyer” part is a dead giveaway.
I’ve had projects like that. Sometimes you have little choice; or you only get the measure of your client too late. Well, I don’t have to do stuff like that anymore.
If you want to build or rebuild or repurpose something: do not cut corners at the planning stage. 80 to 90% of the total cost of the project are decided during the planning stage. Get someone competent, and listen to them.
