Town of Howey-in-the-Hills

A city address is usually permitted by the city, not the county — but not always, and some authorities keep building and hand electrical to someone else. Getting this wrong costs the whole submittal, because every requirement below belongs to whoever actually holds jurisdiction. Check the overlays in the same pass: an HOA, a historic district, a windstorm certification or a system-size cap can reshape the design, and all of them are cheaper to find now than after the array is laid out.

• Is this authority the AHJ for residential solar at this address? Yes -- the Town of Howey-in-the-Hills is the AHJ of record for building and electrical permitting, including residential solar PV, within the town limits. It does not delegate to Lake County; the Town's own Building Services page states it issues the permits itself ('within the town limits'), the Town's Citizen Portal (iWorQ) is the actual permit-issuance system, and floridabuilding.org's statewide registry lists 'Town of Howey in the Hills' (value=3091) as an entity separate from 'County of Lake' (value=2275) -- positive control passed (Polk City, Frostproof, Eagle Lake, Dade City present; negative control passed: Bowling Green, Wauchula, Zolfo Springs, St. Leo, San Antonio all absent, 0 hits each). 96% · AHJ's own department page + statewide registry, cross-checked
• What does this authority permit itself, and what does it delegate? AHJ OF RECORD WITH BOUGHT-IN STAFF (the third shape: self-run authority, contracted staff). The Town's Building Services page states verbatim: 'The Town of Howey-in-the-Hills has an active contract with Alpha, Willdan Engineering Company, to provide oversight of all new construction projects (commercial and residential), additions and alterations of existing structures, through permitting, plan review, and inspection services within the town limits.' Named contact: Matt Fretwell, Willdan Engineering Company (permits@willdan.com, 352-874-3121). Budget fingerprint from the Town's own FY2021 FS 553.80(7) report: real personnel-services cost ($44,489, 2 FTE 'dedicated by the local government') alongside 1,150 of 1,202 (95.7%) building inspections performed 'by a private provider' -- a small in-house presence plus a majority-outsourced inspection function. Willdan joins SAFEbuilt, EPCI, PDCS, CAP Government and Universal Engineering as contracted-AHJ vendors already on file in this survey (and per the brief, Willdan already appears in other Lake County cities). 92% · AHJ's own department page
• Is a permit required for a residential rooftop PV system? Yes. The Town's iWorQ Citizen Portal lists a dedicated 'PV Solar Permit Checklist' distinct from the Electrical Installation Permit Checklist, and the current fee schedule (eff. 8/10/2026) carries a standalone 'Solar Permit Fee' line under both Commercial and Residential Building, separate from the generic Electrical Permit Fee line. The Building Services page also separately lists 'Solar photovoltaic' among the items needing 'permits and zoning clearance.' 95% · permit checklist + fee schedule, name-matched
• Is there a separate electrical permit, or is it combined? $450.00 flat -- identical figure appears twice in the 8/10/2026 fee schedule, once under 'Commercial' and once under 'Residential Building', both captioned 'Solar Permit Fee'. It is NOT tied to declared system valuation (contrast the schedule's Building Permit Fee lines, which ARE priced per square foot); no separate PV plan-review fee is charged since 'Plan Review Fee ... Included' for both commercial and residential. 95% · adopted fee schedule, dated 8/10/2026
• Is a HOA or architectural approval required first? Yes, and it is an FS 163.04 finding. The Town's own Building Services page states verbatim: 'HOA approval is required to be submitted with permit applications.' Per this survey's standing, first-hand-verified reading of FS 163.04(2), an HOA or similar deed-restriction body may not withhold approval of a compliant solar installation -- its only lawfully reserved discretion is WHERE on the roof, within a 45-degree arc of due south, and only if that siting choice does not impair the system's operation. The Town's page states the HOA-approval requirement as an unqualified precondition with no such carve-out, so as applied to a 163.04(2)-compliant solar application, the stated requirement is enforceable only to the extent the HOA's own refusal would itself be lawful under the statute -- the Town's page does not say so. The prevailing party in a dispute is entitled to costs and fees under 163.04(3). 85% · AHJ's own department page, read against FS 163.04 verbatim text
• Is a wind or windstorm certification required? Yes for wind/exposure and structural attachment (see q12); for statewide product approval, the Town's generic Product Approval Specification Sheet (form R-1305, citing FS 553.842 and FAC 9B-72) lists six standard categories (exterior doors, windows, panel wall, roofing products, structural components, new exterior envelope products) with NO dedicated PV/solar module line -- a PV racking/module system would have to be justified under category 6 ('NEW EXTERIOR ENVELOPE PRODUCTS', a single blank line) or via the PV checklist's own engineer-of-record/FSEC route, not through a solar-specific statewide product-approval category. 80% · Town's own statewide-form Product Approval Specification Sheet
• Is a Specific Use Permit or Council approval ever required? Proved zero, by enumeration, not by an unreachable code. All 11 chapters of the Town's own Land Development Code (Ch.1 General Provisions, Ch.2 Zoning Districts, Ch.3 Environmental & Resource Protection, Ch.4 Development Review Procedures, Ch.5 Accessory & Temporary Uses, Ch.6 Supplemental Standards, Ch.7 Landscaping/Irrigation/Hardscape, Ch.8 Development Standards, Ch.9 Boards & Committees, Ch.10 Concurrency, plus the LDC Table of Contents) were downloaded directly from the Town's own DocumentCenter as individual dated PDFs (bypassing the Municode outage entirely) and grepped for 'solar', 'photovoltaic', 'renewable', and 'energy device': zero hits in any chapter except two unrelated matches (a telecom-antenna 'backup power/generator' definition in Ch.1, and a wastewater lift-station 'backup generator' clause in Ch.8) -- neither about PV. The LDC contains no solar-specific zoning provision of any kind. 90% · Town's own LDC chapters, complete enumeration
• Is there a system-size cap on residential generation? Same finding as q27 -- no LDC definition of 'solar collector', 'photovoltaic system', or 'renewable energy device' exists anywhere in the Town's own Ch.1 General Provisions definitions article (the article was read in full) or any other chapter. 90% · Town's own LDC Ch.1 definitions article

Several authorities require the electrical permit to be pulled by a licensed electrician, or require the contractor to be registered with them BEFORE applying. Registration is not same-day. This is second on the list rather than fourth because it is the step most likely to stop the job before the drawings matter.

• Who is allowed to pull the electrical permit? A Florida-licensed contractor (the Building Permit Application has a single signature line captioned 'CONTRACTOR OR OWNER/BUILDER SIGNATURE'), or the property owner under the standard FS 489.103(7) owner-builder exemption (see q7). The PV Solar Permit Checklist separately requires the submitted plan set to be 'digitally signed by the engineer of record, or approved by the FSEC [Florida Solar Energy Center]' -- FSEC certification accepted in lieu of a professional engineer's seal, matching a pattern already on file elsewhere in this survey. 88% · permit checklist + application, name-matched
• Must the contractor be registered with this authority before applying? None found beyond the Florida state license. The Town's own Contractor Registration form lists 'Required Documents' as: State License, Certificate of Liability, and Workers' Comp Exemption or Certificate -- no Lake County or Town-specific competency card, local registration exam, or additional local certificate is requested anywhere on the form. 80% · Town's own contractor registration form
• Is a homeowner permitted to self-install and self-permit? Yes. The Building Permit Application's signature block reads 'CONTRACTOR OR OWNER/BUILDER SIGNATURE' (no separate form required to be filed alongside for the signature itself), and the Town separately publishes the standard statewide 'Owner Builder Disclosure Statement' citing FS 489.103(7)(a) verbatim ('I may build or improve a one-family or two-family residence ... must provide direct, onsite supervision'). No solar-specific carve-out or exclusion appears in either document -- this is the generic owner-builder exemption, not the (now-dead) SunShot-conditional solar-specific limb of 489.103(7)(a)3. 88% · Town's own Owner Builder Disclosure Statement form

Almost everywhere wants a site plan, a one-line or three-line electrical diagram, equipment cut sheets with listings, and a structural attachment detail. Build it against the published checklist rather than the last jurisdiction you worked in — the checklist is what the reviewer marks against.

• What documents make up a complete submittal? Yes -- a dedicated PV Solar Permit Checklist exists (Revision Date 10/01/24) requiring: wind zone/exposure category called out on the plans; a roof plan showing all penetrations with panel overlay; an attachment/spacing detail; an NEC-compliant electrical schematic; a single digitally-signed (engineer-of-record or FSEC-approved) plan set; final-inspection photos of the support system, combiner boxes and attic conductor runs; a completed permit application; contractor license/WC/insurance copies; an NOC for jobs over $2,500; and a property record card. 95% · Town's own PV permit checklist
• How many copies, and in what format? Digital/online. Permits are submitted through the iWorQ Citizen Portal ('Submit applications via the online portal'); the PV checklist itself requires plans be 'submitted as one file ... unlocked so that digital stamps can be installed', i.e. a single digital PDF, not paper sets. 85% · AHJ's own department page
• Is a site plan required, and what must it show? Yes -- the PV checklist requires plans 'digitally signed by the engineer of record, or approved by the FSEC.' No dollar-value threshold is stated; the requirement appears to apply to every PV submittal regardless of size. 85% · Town's own PV permit checklist
• Is a one-line / three-line diagram required? Implied but not itemized by name: the checklist requires 'an electrical schematic that complies with the NEC' and the fee schedule/Building Services page treat electrical wiring work as requiring its own review; no document uses the specific term 'one-line diagram.' 65% · Town's own PV permit checklist
• Are string and conductor calculations required? Yes -- the PV checklist requires 'an attachment detail for the panel to the roof with spacing of supports' and 'required structural connection locations' on the roof layout, plus wind zone (140 mph) and exposure category (C, or justify otherwise) on the plans. 90% · Town's own PV permit checklist

Most authorities now take the whole application through a portal, and several states cap or constrain what a residential solar permit may cost. Check whether plan check is billed separately before you quote the job.

• Which permit portal does this authority use? Yes -- the Town's Citizen Portal is hosted on iWorQ (howey.portal.iworq.net/portalhome/howey), open with no login required to browse checklists and the general application form; a one-time contractor access code is issued after a new permit is first applied for. 93% · Town's own permit portal, verified live
• Can the whole application be completed online? Yes -- per the Building Services page: 'all permit payments, inspection requests, and access to all your current permits can be made via the online portal.' A credit-card surcharge of 3.5% or $2 (whichever is greater) is passed through on card payments made online or at Town Hall; check/cash accepted at Town Hall only. 92% · AHJ's own department page
• What does a residential solar permit cost? $450.00 (see q4 for the full citation). 95% · adopted fee schedule, dated 8/10/2026
• How is the fee calculated? Flat, not valuation-based -- the Solar Permit Fee is a single fixed dollar figure ($450.00) with no per-square-foot or percent-of-value component, unlike the schedule's general Building Permit Fee lines (priced per sq ft). No FS 553.79(1)(f) exposure on this line. 92% · adopted fee schedule, dated 8/10/2026
• Is there a separate plan-check fee? None separately charged -- the fee schedule states 'Plan Review Fee ... Included' for both Commercial and Residential Building, meaning it is bundled into the base permit fee rather than billed as a second line for solar. 90% · adopted fee schedule, dated 8/10/2026

Interconnection is a separate process from the permit and usually the longer pole. Where the utility does not depend on the permit being issued, running both at once is the single biggest saving available on a residential job.

• What is the stated plan-review turnaround? No Howey-specific review clock was found published anywhere reached (fee schedule, checklists, Building Services page, or the reachable LDC chapters). The applicable STATE default is FS 553.792(1)(a): a typical single-family PV job (under 7,500 sq ft, but the work itself commonly exceeds the $15,000 5-business-day threshold) falls to the 30-business-day limb, not the 5-day limb, unless the job value is under $15,000. 65% · state statute (no town override found)
• Which utility handles interconnection here? TWO sellers, both evidenced (not the geographic-inference-only shape recorded for neighbouring Astatula): Duke Energy Florida and SECO Energy (Sumter Electric Cooperative). EIA-861 Service_Territory_2024.xlsx (FL/Lake) lists five county-level candidates (Clay Electric Cooperative, Duke Energy Florida, City of Leesburg, City of Mount Dora, SECO Energy). Closed with SECO Energy's OWN authoritative ArcGIS service-territory layer (FS_Service_Territory_2020_with_Mask, layers 5 'Other Utility's Service Area' and 6 'SECO Energy Service Territory'), sampled against the TIGERweb layer-25 place polygon for 'Howey-in-the-Hills town' (POP100 1,643 -- exact match to the brief's population figure, the same free cross-check used elsewhere in this survey) with a 40x40 grid (631 interior sample points): 385/631 (61.0%) fall in SECO's 'Other Utility' layer, 246/631 (39.0%) fall inside SECO's own territory polygon -- a clean two-way partition with zero points landing in neither layer (spot-checked all 246 'not-SECO' points against layer 6 directly: 246/246 confirmed inside SECO territory). 'Other Utility' is identified as Duke Energy Florida from a named, dated local-news source: GrowthSpotter/Orlando Sentinel (29 Apr 2026) reports the Town brought in Duke Energy for a $25M undergrounding cost estimate covering 'about 1,100 customers in Howey', quoting Duke's own Director of Project Management by name -- i.e. Duke is the incumbent overhead-line utility, not a new entrant. SECO Energy's own Facebook outage post independently names '211 SECO members served by our Howey-in-the-hills [area]', confirming SECO also serves real customers inside the town, consistent with the 39% GIS share. This closes the Lake County five-candidate list to two for THIS town (City of Leesburg and City of Mount Dora's municipal utilities are, as elsewhere in this survey, confined to their own city limits and are excluded by the same two-way GIS partition finding no room for a third seller by area; Clay Electric Cooperative's footprint lies further north/northeast and is likewise excluded by the same exhaustive partition). 82% · utility's own authoritative GIS layer, area-intersected against the Census place polygon
• Where does the utility sit in the sequence? Write-in blank, not a checkbox: the general Building Permit Application does not carry a utility field at all; no dedicated PV-specific application form was found with utility checkboxes. The Town's own budget independently corroborates an external seller: the FY26 financial report shows non-zero 'U.S.T. - Electricity' ($208,000 annual budget) and 'Franchise Fee - Electric' ($152,000 annual budget) revenue lines -- both single aggregate lines, so this alone cannot distinguish one seller from two (see q22 for the split itself). 80% · Town's own monthly financial report

The NEC edition a jurisdiction enforces is often a cycle behind the newest one published, and local amendments sit on top of it. Rapid shutdown, conductor sizing and labelling all change between editions, so the edition in force is the first thing to establish, not the last.

• Which NEC edition is in force? 2020 NEC, in force statewide via the current Florida Building Code cycle. No Howey-specific edition year is printed anywhere in the Town's own reached documents (the PV and electrical checklists both say only 'must follow the latest edition of the Florida Building Code' -- floating, undated language) -- this is the statewide default, not a town-confirmed figure. 70% · Town's own checklist (floating citation) + statewide code-cycle default
• Which building code edition is in force? Florida Building Code, 8th Edition (2023), statewide -- same floating-citation caveat as q29: the Town's own documents say 'the latest edition' without a year. 70% · Town's own checklist (floating citation) + statewide code-cycle default

Ridge setbacks and roof access pathways are fire-service requirements and they constrain the array layout. They are the most common cause of a redesign after the fire department comments on a plan set.

• What ridge setback and access pathways are required? Yes -- the PV Solar Permit Checklist itself requires the roof layout to show 'Fire department access location' and 'Fire department access pathways' as line items on the submitted plans, verbatim. 90% · Town's own PV permit checklist

Which rapid-shutdown rule applies follows directly from the NEC edition in force, and the initiation device has to be at a location the fire service can reach and identify. This is inspected, and it is labelled.

• Is rapid shutdown required, and to which NEC edition? Not named explicitly -- the checklist requires only that the electrical schematic 'complies with the NEC', without naming NEC 690.12 (rapid shutdown) specifically. Since the applicable statewide NEC edition is 2020 (q29), which mandates 690.12 rapid shutdown for PV systems, the requirement is necessarily incorporated by the general NEC-compliance clause even though the Town's own document never uses the term. 65% · Town's own PV permit checklist, read against the statewide NEC edition

The NEC sets a baseline for permanent markings at the service equipment and the disconnecting means. On top of that, an authority may specify its own wording, and the utility may specify more again. Where any of them writes its own text, a generic off-the-shelf label set will not pass — this is the detail most often fixed on a return visit.

Nothing recorded for Town of Howey-in-the-Hills on this step yet — 6 questions checked and found unpublished. The guidance above is general.

Where the AC disconnect must sit relative to the meter is usually the utility's rule, not the building department's. Battery storage frequently carries its own permit, its own inspection and its own fire conditions.

• Where must the AC disconnect be, relative to the meter? No -- the general Building Permit Application has no utility field of any kind (no write-in blank, no checkbox); the specific serving utility is not name-checked anywhere on any Town form reached. 78% · Town's own Building Permit Application, complete read
• Are batteries permitted, and under what conditions? No PV-specific ground-mount rule exists (q27's zero holds for ground mounts too). A ground-mounted PV array on a residential lot would fall to the LDC's GENERAL accessory-structure provisions (Ch.5, Accessory and Temporary Uses and Structures) -- setback and height limits that vary by the parcel's zoning district -- rather than to any solar-specific standard, since none exists. 70% · Town's own LDC Ch.5, complete enumeration
• Is there a separate ESS permit or inspection? No dedicated Energy Storage System/battery permit type or inspection line exists anywhere in the fee schedule, the iWorQ checklist library, or the LDC (grepped for 'battery', 'ESS', 'energy storage' -- zero hits across all reached documents). 82% · fee schedule + LDC, complete enumeration
• Is a ground mount treated as a structure? The Town's Code of Ordinances is nominally hosted on Municode (library.municode.com/fl/howey-in-the-hills/codes/code_of_ordinances) but that route is PROVED UNREACHABLE, not merely unread: the URL returns the same byte-identical 6,095-byte generic client-side shell this survey has logged network-wide for Municode as of 13 Sep 2026. Separately and workably, the Town's own site hosts its ENTIRE Land Development Code as individually dated PDF chapters directly under its own DocumentCenter (bypassing Municode entirely) -- this is how q27/28/45/46 were actually proved rather than left unreached. 85% · Town's own DocumentCenter (LDC) vs. Municode (Code of Ordinances)
• Is a specific mounting system or attachment spacing required? No dedicated fire setback/spacing rule for PV arrays was found in any reached document (LDC chapters or checklists); a general fire-code setback, if any, would sit in the unreachable Code of Ordinances (see q31). 55% · Town's own LDC chapters, complete enumeration (bounded by Municode outage)

Booking is a portal, a phone call or an email depending on the authority, and the notice required is rarely zero. Book before the work is finished rather than after — the lead time, not the work, is usually what sets the date.

• How is an inspection booked? Online only, through the portal -- the Building Services page states explicitly: 'Inspections must be requested through the portal and can not be requested via other means.' 92% · AHJ's own department page

Some authorities inspect their own solar work; some delegate it, and a few do not inspect the PV equipment itself at all. Who is coming determines what they will look at.

• Does this AHJ perform its own final solar inspection? Willdan Engineering Company, under its active contract with the Town, per the Town's own Building Services page and the FY2021 utilization report showing 1,150 of 1,202 (95.7%) inspections performed 'by a private provider' (see q2). 88% · AHJ's own department page
• If delegated, to whom? Building and electrical are NOT delegated to Lake County -- the Town is the AHJ of record (see q1/q2) and issues, plan-reviews and inspects through its own contracted staff. The Town's own page does note that 'Lake County fees must be paid to them directly, and proof of payment must be provided as part of the permitting process' -- i.e. the County retains a SEPARATE fee obligation (most plausibly county impact fees on new construction/added floor area) that runs alongside, not instead of, the Town's own building-permit process. No document reached identifies whether that county-side fee applies to a simple equipment retrofit like rooftop PV on an existing home. 82% · AHJ's own department page

A rough-in or mid-roof inspection, where one is required, has to happen before the work it covers is closed up. Missing a stage means opening something back up, and it is the most expensive kind of correction.

• Which inspections are required, and in what order? No dedicated 'Solar PV Final' inspection type exists in isolation; instead the PV checklist itself specifies exactly what the final inspection must document by photograph: the roof support system before panel placement (with a tape measure showing fastener spacing), the combiner boxes after all conductors are installed, and the attic conductor runs -- i.e. PV is closed out through the ordinary Building/Electrical Final inspection process but with a PV-specific photographic evidence requirement layered on top. 82% · Town's own PV permit checklist

The approved plan set, the permit, and the equipment listings should be on site and reachable. Inspectors routinely verify that installed equipment matches what was approved, and that the labels are the ones the plan set promised.

• What must be on site at inspection? A recorded Notice of Commencement is required for PV jobs valued over $2,500, per the PV checklist's own item 3 ('The NOC must be on site prior to the first inspection') and the general Building Permit Application's own boldface warning about recording an NOC before the first inspection. $2,500 matches the statewide FS 713.132 general threshold. 90% · Town's own PV permit checklist

Passing gives you a final or an equivalent sign-off. That is not the same as permission to operate: PTO comes from the utility, and who tells the utility the inspection passed varies. A system left switched off for weeks is usually waiting on this handover.

• Is there a re-inspection fee? $75.00 flat re-inspection fee, per the current fee schedule's 'Administrative Fees' section ('Re-Inspection Fee ... 75.00'); no escalating second/third-reinspection tier is stated (unlike a neighbouring Lake County town's escalating $50/$75/... schedule already on file in this survey) -- Howey's is a single flat figure for every re-inspection. 90% · adopted fee schedule, dated 8/10/2026