Grep · sample report

Site Feasibility Brief — For a site and intended use, you get zoning, permitted-use status, constraints, hazards, infrastructure, indicative costs and a sourced go/no-go call.

workon demandoperational
Inputs used for this sample
Site Feasibility Brief

Site (address, parcel ID or coordinates): parcel 123-45-678, Maricopa County, AZ

Intended use: 20-unit townhome development

Budget, timeline or specific concerns (optional): Max $4M all-in, break ground within 12 months; worried about floodplain and sewer capacity

Site Feasibility Brief: 20-Unit Townhomes, Parcel 123-45-678, Maricopa County AZ (Verdict: Conditional, Parcel Unverified)

Interpretation: I read "parcel 123-45-678" as a Maricopa County Assessor parcel number (book 123, map 45, parcel 678, no split letter), and "20-unit townhome development" as attached for-sale or rental townhomes (multifamily or attached single-family in the code's own terms). The mapping to a specific zoning use category cannot be made until the parcel is identified.

Verdict: Conditional (screening only, nothing about this site is confirmed). The Assessor's own search returned Parcel not found for 12345678, the same digits as your parcel number with the separators removed. The Assessor says any separator format works, so the number may be mistyped, may have been split or combined, or may be a placeholder (the Assessor page supports only the split or combine explanation). Without a real parcel I cannot state a jurisdiction, zoning, flood zone or sewer provider. Every site-specific row below is therefore Unverified. What I can give you is the verification path and the County process facts that bear on your two named worries.

Site identification

Item Finding Source
Parcel number 123-45-678 not found in Assessor search on 6 October 2026 Assessor parcel lookup
Address, acreage, current use, owner entity Unverified (no parcel record returned) n/a
Jurisdiction and governing authority Unverified (city, town or unincorporated county unknown) n/a

The Assessor notes that a number that does not return a parcel may have gone through a split or combine, and offers a parcel history report on request. Searching by street address, owner entity or subdivision is also supported.

Zoning and permitted use

Unverified. Zoning is set by the city or town, or by the County in unincorporated areas, so the district, overlays, code section and by-right, conditional or rezoning status cannot be stated. A 20-unit townhome project needs a density test (units per acre) against the district, so acreage is the first number to obtain.

Constraints table

Factor Finding Severity Source
Parcel identity Number returns no record High (blocks all else) Assessor lookup
Setbacks, density, parking, height Unverified, depends on zoning district Unverified n/a
Flood (your named concern) FIRM panel, zone and effective date not checkable without a parcel. If any part lies in a regulated floodplain, the Flood Control District requires a floodplain use permit with an engineer's report and site plan Unverified Flood Control District permits page
Wetlands, soils, slope, contamination, historic, easements Not screened; no parcel to map Unverified n/a
Sewer capacity (your named concern) Provider unknown. County Environmental Services publishes a document titled "Instructions – Sewer Capacity Assurance" (title only; I could not read its text), which suggests a capacity-confirmation step may apply Unverified Sewer Capacity Assurance instructions

On flood process: the District encourages a pre-application meeting (fee $0) at 602-506-2419. A floodplain variance, if ever needed, costs $2,600 for residential, commercial or industrial with posting and is limited to narrow cases. A variance for housing is unlikely to be granted, so a flood-zone parcel would more likely need a LOMR or CLOMR, which the District's permit page lists with digital model, FEMA MT-1/MT-2 form, construction plans and an Endangered Species Act report. The page notes its regulations PDF was archived November 2025, so confirm the current edition. My reading that a variance is unlikely for housing is inference from the quoted "functionally dependent use" test, not a District statement.

Infrastructure

Water, sewer, electric and road access providers are all Unverified because they depend on the parcel's location. For sewer, if the site is outside a municipal or private utility service area, County sewage rules may apply; I located a Maricopa County Environmental Health Code Chapter II, Sewage Works document by title only, and its applicability is unverified. I did not read these PDFs in text form (fetches returned encoded PDF data), so I make no claim about their capacity rules or fees.

Indicative cost and timeline

No sourced cost or timeline range could be built. I did not retrieve published impact, connection or permit fee schedules, and I will not supply benchmarks from memory.

Test Result
$4M all-in budget Unverified (not testable without land price, fees, site work scope)
Break ground within 12 months Unverified (depends on whether rezoning, a floodplain permit or CLOMR, or sewer extension is required)

Verdict reasons

Do next

  1. Send the correct address, the real APN or coordinates; I can then rerun the brief.
  2. Check the Assessor and Parcel Viewer for a parcel history report if the APN was split.
  3. Pull the FEMA flood map panel and effective date for the site, and request a Flood Control District pre-application meeting.
  4. Request a will-serve or capacity letter from the sewer and water provider.
  5. Commission an ALTA survey, Phase I ESA and geotechnical report once the site is confirmed, and hold a zoning pre-application meeting with the city or county.

This brief is not legal, engineering, survey or investment advice.

Open questions

Coverage note

Not reached or not read: the Parcel Viewer map (JavaScript app), FEMA, USFWS, NRCS, EPA and ADEQ layers (no parcel to query), and the text of the County sewer PDFs (returned encoded).

Sources