Pathway Report · example
3.1-acre industrial flex site
- Site
- 3.1 acres, unincorporated county, Central Texas
- Program
- Two single-story flex buildings, about 36,000 SF total, sprinklered
- Report
- Pathway Report · revision 2 · reviewed by a person
Illustrative sample. The site, numbers and dates are made up to show how a Pathway Report reads. It is not analysis of a real property.
Next move
Ask the water utility for a fire flow test
Request available flow and residual pressure at the nearest hydrant, and whether a fire pump may connect to their main. This answer decides whether the plan needs nothing more, a pump, or on-site storage. The drafted request is in section 8.
Deal-killers first
Fire flow is not confirmed
The adopted fire code sets a minimum flow for buildings this size. The utility has not said what the line can deliver. If it falls short, the plan needs a pump or storage tank. Worst case, that means a redesign and a second fire review.
The replat triggers a road reservation
The county thoroughfare plan shows a future road along the north line. Replatting to combine the two tracts brings in a reservation strip. That strip comes out of the front of the site, so the north building moves south.
The ETJ map and the record disagree
A county map layer still shows the site inside a city's ETJ. The seller says it was released. We treat the release as real only when the recorded document is in hand, because the answer decides whose rules apply.
Every approval, in order
| # | Approval | Status | Who decides | Depends on | Source | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Jurisdiction confirmed | Conflict | City and county | Nothing | County GIS layer; seller statement | Low until the release document is found |
| 2 | Replat combining two tracts | Requirement | Commissioners court | Jurisdiction | County subdivision rules; thoroughfare plan | High |
| 3 | Road reservation on the replat | Requirement | County | Replat | Thoroughfare plan | High |
| 4 | Floodplain | Clear | Floodplain administrator | Nothing | FEMA effective map; no preliminary map change found | High |
| 5 | Septic permit (OSSF) | Requirement | County, as the state's authorized agent | Replat | County septic rules; soil survey | Medium |
| 6 | Fire flow | Unknown | Fire marshal sets it; utility supplies it | Building size and sprinklers | Adopted fire code; utility test not yet run | Open |
| 7 | Driveway permit | Requirement | County road department | Replat | County access rules | Medium |
| 8 | Development permit | Requirement | County development services | Steps 2 to 7 | County development regulations | High |
| 9 | Fire plan review | Requirement | Fire marshal | Fire flow | County fire code | Medium |
Best case and worst case
The release document is found, the utility confirms enough flow at pressure, and the replat makes the next court agenda.
The flow test comes back short and the plan needs on-site storage, which means a redesign and a second fire review, and the replat slips one agenda cycle.
What moves the range
- Fire flow test result. The biggest swing. A good answer removes about 14 weeks of worst case.
- ETJ release document. If no recorded release exists, a city process may apply instead of the county path.
- Court agenda timing. Each missed cycle adds weeks to the replat.
Plan A and Plan B
| Plan A · as drawn | Plan B · building shifted south | |
|---|---|---|
| Buildings | Two buildings, 36,000 SF | Two buildings, 33,000 SF |
| Road reservation | North building sits in the strip | Clears the strip |
| Approvals added | Variance request | None |
| Discretionary risk | Higher: needs a variance | Lower |
| Illustrative effect | More area if the variance is granted | About 8% less area, a shorter path |
Professional gates
- Detention and water quality design. Project civil engineer to confirm whether ponds are required and where.
- Septic design. Licensed septic designer, based on a site soil evaluation.
- ETJ release. Attorney to confirm the release if the document is ambiguous.
- Fire protection. Fire protection engineer to size a pump or tank if the flow comes back short.
Sources
| Source | What it supports | Status |
|---|---|---|
| County subdivision rules | Replat requirement, reservation trigger | Verified |
| County thoroughfare plan | Future road along the north line | Verified |
| FEMA effective flood map | Site outside the mapped floodplain | Verified |
| Adopted fire code, fire flow appendix | Required flow for building size and type | Verified |
| County ETJ map layer | Shows site inside the ETJ | Conflicts with seller |
| Utility fire flow test | Available flow and pressure | Requested |
Drafted next move
To: Water utility, engineering department Subject: Fire flow test request for a planned industrial building Hello, We are planning two sprinklered single-story flex buildings, about 36,000 SF total, at [address] (parcel [ID]). Could you please confirm: 1. Available fire flow at the nearest hydrant 2. Residual pressure at that flow 3. Whether a fire pump may connect to your main 4. What you need from us to run or schedule a flow test Thank you, [Name] · [Company] · [Phone]
You send it. VALITER drafts it. When the answer comes back, the report updates and the next move changes.