Large-Impact Project Standards and Conformance Review

How evidence becomes a documented decision

The Large-Impact Project Review explains how a county receives, organizes and tests project information. This companion page explains how the county uses that record to determine whether the project meets the standards that apply.

Begin with the Large-Impact Project Review

Two parts of one system

Part 1: The review process

The review process covers project intake, application completeness, the public project file, independent technical review, public input, advisory findings and preparation for Commissioners Court consideration.

Part 2: The conformance decision

The conformance process compares the completed record with the applicable standards. It identifies deficiencies, documents proposed conditions and produces a formal finding before discretionary county support is considered.

The purpose is not to search for reasons to reject responsible development. The purpose is to establish clear expectations, test the evidence and create a public record that explains the decision.

What the conformance review decides

The review asks five basic questions:

• Is the application complete enough to support a decision?
• Are the applicant's claims supported by reliable project-specific evidence?
• Does the project meet the applicable standards?
• Can identified impacts be prevented, reduced or corrected through enforceable conditions?
• Does the proposed public benefit justify the public support and public burden involved?

The Standards Alignment Matrix

Each applicable standard should appear in a Standards Alignment Matrix. The matrix connects the rule with the evidence and makes unresolved gaps visible.

Each entry should identify:

• The applicable standard
• The source of the standard
• The evidence submitted by the applicant
• The independent reviewer’s finding
• Any missing proof or unresolved impact
• Any proposed design change, mitigation or condition
• The current conformance status

The matrix should distinguish mandatory minimum standards from standards that may be satisfied through project-specific design, mitigation or enforceable agreement terms.

The deficiency and response cycle

A correctable problem should not become an automatic rejection. It should become a documented deficiency with a defined path to resolution.

1. Written deficiency notice

The county or its independent reviewer identifies the unmet standard, missing information or unsupported claim.

2. Applicant response

The applicant may supplement the record, provide testing, redesign the project or propose enforceable mitigation.

3. Independent re-review

The county-selected reviewer evaluates the new evidence and determines whether the deficiency has been corrected.

4. Closure or unresolved finding

The public record shows whether the deficiency was closed, remains unresolved or supports a finding that the project does not conform.

The notice should identify the applicable standard, the required correction, the responsible party, the deadline and the proof needed to close the deficiency.

Four possible findings

Conforms

The project has demonstrated that it meets the applicable mandatory standards. Remaining commitments can be placed into enforceable agreements. The project may proceed to consideration of discretionary county support.

Conditionally conforms

The project can meet the applicable standards only through specific design changes, mitigation, financial assurance, monitoring or agreement terms. Every condition must be measurable, assigned and enforceable.

Has not demonstrated conformance

The record is incomplete, uncertain or unsupported. The county issues a written deficiency notice. The applicant may supplement, retest or redesign, but the project is not ready for final action.

Does not conform

The project cannot meet a mandatory standard, leaves a material public impact unresolved or proposes mitigation that is not reliable or enforceable. The county issues a written nonconformance finding identifying the evidence and standards supporting that conclusion.

What happens when standards are not met

A review cannot end with concerns being noted and then proceed as though the standards were satisfied.

When the project has not demonstrated conformance, final county action should be delayed until the record is complete enough to support a decision.

When the project does not conform, the county should withhold discretionary support. Depending on its lawful authority and the request before it, the county may:

• Decline a tax abatement, support letter or other incentive
• Decline participation in infrastructure coordination or project agreements
• Deny, delay, suspend or condition a county approval where authorized
• Require redesign or mitigation before reconsideration
• Refer legal or permit violations to the responsible agency
• Publish the findings, evidence and unresolved standards in the public project file

A developer may submit a redesigned proposal when the deficiencies can be corrected. A new or supplemental review should address the changed design rather than treating the previous record as proof of conformance.

What conditional approval must contain

A condition is useful only when it is measurable and enforceable.

Each condition should state:

• What must be done
• Which standard it satisfies
• Who is responsible
• When it must be completed
• How completion will be verified
• What happens if the condition is missed

Conditions should be incorporated into the applicable tax-abatement agreement, road-use agreement, development agreement, financial assurance or other enforceable county document where lawful.

The Commissioners Court decision

The conformance finding informs the Commissioners Court. It does not eliminate the Court's lawful discretion.

The Court may approve, deny, delay, condition, modify or negotiate discretionary county support. Its motion and written record should identify the conformance finding, incorporated conditions, unresolved issues and the evidence supporting the action.

Approval of county support does not mean every outside permit has been granted. It also does not prevent the county from requiring continued compliance with enforceable project commitments.

After approval

The process continues into construction, startup and operations.

Project commitments become monitoring requirements. Public dashboards and periodic certifications show whether limits are being met. Complaint, cure and corrective-action procedures address problems. Material operational changes may trigger supplemental review.

Standards before support. Monitoring after approval. Enforcement when promises are missed.

Continue exploring

Return to the Large-Impact Project Review

Return to the Texas Resource Stewardship Protocol

Explore the Good Neighbor Policy

Explore the Texas Resource Stewardship Initiative

Explore Industrial Monitoring and Enforcement

Browse the Resource Library

Working draft notice

The Large-Impact Project Standards and Conformance Review is an active policy-development framework. Final county procedures, legal authority and agreement language should be reviewed by county counsel before adoption or use in a binding decision.

Publication does not mean the framework has been enacted by the Legislature, adopted by a county or approved as final legal language.

Let's keep building.

Shared Resources. Shared Standards. Shared Stewardship.