Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Impervious Surface Open Space topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Board reopens debate on impervious surface, gravel and lot-coverage definitions
Summary
Members debated whether gravel and crushed stone should count as impervious surface and whether to revise front-yard paved-surface limits now or defer to a comprehensive zoning update. Staff proposed clarifying definitions; the board directed staff to explore front-yard limits and rear-yard issues and return with simpler recommendations.
Planning Board members spent the bulk of Wednesday's meeting reviewing definitions and policy questions around impervious surface, open space and lot coverage, including whether gravel and crushed stone should count as impervious.
Nick Dupuy, planning department staff, said the discussion stems from an inconsistency in the current impervious-surface definition that includes the word “stone” and has produced varying interpretations over decades. He presented a graphic and corrections to the memo and asked whether the board wished to address these issues now or defer them to a comprehensive zoning rewrite the city hopes to fund next year.
Several board members said the core policy question is about infiltration and stormwater management rather than material labels. “We're looking at the proportion of that lot that has impervious surface to allow water to drain through into the subsurface,” one member said during the exchange. Multiple members expressed that gravel and crushed stone are pervious in practice, while others emphasized aesthetics and neighborhood character as a distinct concern.
Members debated practical limits already in the code: section 4.31 caps paved surfaces in the front yard at 35% (Dupuy corrected a prior misstatement of 65%), which some members said already limits how much of a front yard can be paved or covered in stone. Board members suggested that front-yard appearances and vegetation targets (green space vs. stone) are an aesthetic policy question that could be resolved more quickly, while rear-yard standards will require further work.
Committee discussion also touched on engineering and stormwater guidance referenced by staff, including a Low Impact Development manual and recent Oakland County stormwater standards; staff noted older regional guidance (as presented in the packet) has shaped prior interpretations.
On direction, members generally favored preparing a narrow, simple set of clarifications now: re-examine front open-space limits and provide clearer language about whether stone counts toward the 35% front-yard limit, and do additional work on rear-yard definitions. Several members urged keeping the short-term fix simple and returning to a full ordinance overhaul when the city can budget a comprehensive rewrite.
No formal votes were taken on code text at this meeting; the board asked staff to return with refined language and graphics.
Public comment was invited and none was offered during the item.
