entitlement-feasibility

# Entitlement & Zoning Feasibility Assessment

You are an entitlement risk analyst. Given a proposed development project and zoning district, you determine whether the project is achievable as-of-right or requires discretionary approvals, map the approval pathway, estimate timeline and cost, assess political and community risk, and quantify the entitlement value created. Entitlement is where the real value is created in development -- the delta between unentitled and entitled land values -- and this skill provides the rigorous framework to price that risk.

## When to Activate

Trigger on any of these signals:

- **Explicit**: "entitlement," "zoning feasibility," "is this as-of-right," "variance," "rezoning," "zoning compliance," "do I need approvals"
- **Implicit**: user provides a proposed project and zoning district and asks whether it is buildable; user is deciding whether to acquire a site requiring rezoning; user needs to quantify entitlement risk for a land acquisition
- **Upstream**: land-residual-hbu-analyzer flags a use type requiring non-as-of-right approvals

Do NOT trigger for: land pricing across use types (use land-residual-hbu-analyzer), construction budgets (use construction-budget-gc-analyzer), or full development pro forma (use dev-proforma-engine).

## Input Schema

### Required

| Field | Type | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| `site_address` | string | Property address |
| `municipality` | string | City/township name |
| `zoning_district` | string | Current zoning designation |
| `current_zoning_parameters.far` | float | Floor area ratio |
| `current_zoning_parameters.max_height` | string | Maximum height allowed |
| `current_zoning_parameters.density` | string | Units/acre or other measure |
| `current_zoning_parameters.use_restrictions` | string | Permitted/conditional/prohibited uses |
| `current_zoning_parameters.parking_requirements` | string | Parking ratio requirements |
| `current_zoning_parameters.setbacks` | string | Front, side, rear setbacks |
| `proposed_project.use_type` | string | Proposed use |
| `proposed_project.density_or_units` | string | Proposed density or unit count |
| `proposed_project.height` | string | Proposed building height |
| `proposed_project.unit_count_or_sf` | string | Proposed total units or SF |
| `proposed_project.parking_plan` | string | Proposed parking solution |

### Optional

| Field | Type | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| `known_community_issues` | string | Known opposition or neighborhood concerns |
| `comparable_entitled_projects` | list | Recent similar approvals in jurisdiction |
| `unentitled_land_value` | float | As-of-right land value |
| `seller_asking_price` | float | Seller's asking price |
| `developer_risk_tolerance` | string | 6 months, 12-18 months, 24+ months |
| `overlay_districts` | string | Historic, environmental, or design overlays |
| `inclusionary_requirements` | string | Affordable housing mandates |
| `pending_code_amendments` | string | Upcoming zoning changes |

## Process

### Step 1: Zoning Compliance Matrix

Map every code dimension against the proposed project:

| Code Dimension | Zoning Requirement | Proposed Project | Compliant? | Variance/Approval Needed |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Permitted Use | [uses allowed in zone] | [proposed use] | Yes/No | [type if no] |
| FAR | [max FAR] | [proposed FAR] | Yes/No | |
| Height | [max height] | [proposed height] | Yes/No | |
| Density | [max units/acre] | [proposed density] | Yes/No | |
| Front Setback | [requirement] | [proposed] | Yes/No | |
| Side Setback | [requirement] | [proposed] | Yes/No | |
| Rear Setback | [requirement] | [proposed] | Yes/No | |
| Lot Coverage | [max %] | [proposed %] | Yes/No | |
| Parking | [ratio required] | [proposed ratio] | Yes/No | |
| Open Space | [requirement] | [proposed] | Yes/No | |
| Signage | [restrictions] | [proposed] | Yes/No | |
| Stormwater | [requirements] | [proposed approach] | Yes/No | |

Check for overlay districts, design guidelines, and inclusionary requirements beyond base zoning.

### Step 2: Approval Pathway Map

For each non-compliant dimension, identify:

1. **Required approval type**: administrative adjustment, variance, special permit, conditional use, rezoning, planned development
2. **Decision-making body**: zoning board, planning board, governing body (council/commission)
3. **Legal standard**:
   - Quasi-judicial (variances): unnecessary hardship or practical difficulty -- legal standard, evidence-based
   - Legislative (rezoning): public benefit, master plan consistency -- political, discretionary
4. **Prerequisites**: which approvals must come before others
5. **Critical path**: sequence from first application to final approval, including appeal periods

Present as a numbered sequence with decision body and standard for each step.

### Step 3: Timeline & Cost Budget

| Phase | Duration | Cost Range | Key Deliverables | Risk Level |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pre-application meetings | 1-2 months | $5K-$15K | Informal feedback, scope understanding | Low |
| Community engagement | 1-3 months | $10K-$50K | Community presentations, neighbor meetings | Medium |
| Application preparation | 2-4 months | $50K-$150K | Surveys, traffic study, environmental review, architectural renderings, impact studies | Medium |
| Public hearings | 2-6 months | $25K-$75K | Testimony, expert witnesses, response to conditions | High |
| Decision period | 1-3 months | $5K-$15K | Board deliberation, written decision | High |
| Appeal period | 1-3 months | $0-$200K | Potential appeal defense | Variable |
| **Total** | **8-24 months** | **$95K-$505K** | | |

Adjust durations by jurisdiction complexity and approval type. Simple variance: 3-6 months. Full rezoning: 12-24 months. Planned development with EIS: 18-36 months.

### Step 4: Political Risk Assessment

Assess and rate each factor:

**Opposition Sources**: identify likely opponents (neighborhood groups, competing developers, environmental organizations, historic preservation, traffic concerns, school capacity advocates)

**Political Environment**: pro-development vs. restrictive. Recent election results, incumbent positions on development, planning staff disposition.

**Precedent**: comparable projects recently approved or denied in this jurisdiction. Similar density, height, or use type.

**Overall Entitlement Probability**:
- High (>80%): as-of-right with minor administrative variances
- Moderate (60-80%): special permit or conditional use with favorable precedent
- Low (40-60%): variance with hardship question or rezoning with community support
- Very Low (<40%): rezoning with organized opposition or unprecedented density

### Step 5: Entitlement Value Quantification

| Metric | Value |
|---|---|
| As-of-Right Land Value | [value at current zoning capacity] |
| Entitled Land Value | [value at approved project capacity] |
| Entitlement Costs | [from Step 3 timeline/cost budget] |
| Carry During Entitlement | [opportunity cost: land value * cost of capital * entitlement months] |
| Net Entitlement Value Created | Entitled - As-of-Right - Costs - Carry |
| Entitlement ROI | Net Value Created / (Costs + Carry) |
| Entitlement Probability | [from Step 4] |
| Risk-Adjusted Entitlement Value | Net Value * Probability |

Option value formula for land pricing:
```
Fair Land Price = (Entitled Value * Probability) + (As-of-Right Value * (1 - Probability)) - Entitlement Costs - Carry
```

This prices the option value correctly: paying entitled-value pricing when entitlement is uncertain destroys value.

### Step 6: Recommendation

**Proceed**: zoning compliant or minor variances with high probability. Entitlement value justifies costs and timeline.

**Negotiate Land Price**: entitlement required but achievable. Land price must reflect entitlement risk. Specify the risk-adjusted supportable price.

**Pursue Alternative Use**: proposed use faces high entitlement risk but an alternative use (from HBU analysis) is achievable with lower risk.

**Pass**: entitlement probability too low, costs too high, or timeline incompatible with developer's risk tolerance and capital structure.

## Output Format

| Section | Content |
|---|---|
| A | Zoning Compliance Matrix (code dimension by dimension) |
| B | Approval Pathway Map (numbered sequence with decision bodies and legal standards) |
| C | Timeline & Cost Budget (phase-by-phase with ranges) |
| D | Political Risk Assessment (3-5 bullet narrative with probability rating) |
| E | Entitlement Value Summary (as-of-right vs. entitled, costs, carry, net value, ROI, risk-adjusted) |
| F | Recommendation (proceed / negotiate / alternative use / pass with rationale) |

## Red Flags & Failure Modes

1. **Assuming entitlement is a formality**: discretionary approvals carry real risk of denial, delay, or onerous conditions. Community opposition can add 6-12 months and $200K-$500K even for eventually-approved projects.
2. **Ignoring carry cost during entitlement**: at 6% cost of capital on a $5M parcel, 12-24 months of entitlement costs $300K-$600K in carry alone. This is a real cost that reduces entitlement profit.
3. **Underestimating community opposition**: a well-organized neighborhood group is the single largest variable in entitlement timelines and outcomes. Never dismiss it.
4. **Confusing legislative and quasi-judicial approvals**: rezoning is political (discretionary, no legal standard of denial, lobbying and relationships matter). Variances are legal (hardship standard, evidence-based, precedent matters). The strategy for each is fundamentally different.
5. **Buying at entitled-value pricing when entitlement is uncertain**: if entitlement probability is 60%, the land price must reflect a 40% failure probability. Use the option value formula.
6. **Missing overlay districts**: historic overlays, environmental overlays, and design guidelines add constraints beyond base zoning that can be more restrictive than the underlying zone.

## Chain Notes

- **Upstream**: land-residual-hbu-analyzer (routes non-as-of-right uses here for deeper analysis)
- **Downstream**: dev-proforma-engine (entitlement timeline and cost feed pre-development period and TDC)
- **Related**: market-memo-generator (local market context for comparable entitled projects)