Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Development Drainage Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Hays County tables Sunfield development drainage variance after commissioners raise flood concerns
Summary
The court declined to grant a variance that would allow higher post-development runoff for the Sunfield subdivision and asked developer and staff to return with more information; commissioners cited local flood history and the FM 2001 project as complicating factors.
The Hays County Commissioners Court on April 22 tabled a request for a variance to county development regulations that would have allowed the Sunfield subdivision to discharge a higher post-development runoff rate than the regulations permit.
Parks Pacheco, director of Development Services, explained that the requested variance related to Chapter 7.25.3.02, which requires post-development runoff not exceed predevelopment rates for applicable storm events. The developer's plan showed an outfall rate of about 89.5 cubic feet per second for the 100-year storm — higher than the county's standard. The developer told the court that the higher flows reflected conditions that existed before Texas Department of Transportation work on FM 2001 altered drainage patterns.
Lehi Matabuko, a civil engineer with Kimley-Horn representing the developer, said the property functions like a detention area because FM 2001 construction built an embankment that impounded runoff. He said the project team had conducted flood studies and proposed to keep adjacent low-lying land undeveloped as part of the drainage solution.
Commissioner Michelle Cohen said she was uncomfortable granting the variance without additional analysis, citing the county's history of flash flooding in western Hays County and uncertainty about where increased flows would go. "We don't know where any of this water's going," Cohen said. Commissioner Debbie Inglesby and Commissioner Walt Smith likewise urged staff and the developer to produce more information and, if appropriate, mitigation commitments including dedicated drainage easements and TxDOT approvals for culvert crossings.
Parks Pacheco said staff would continue working with the developer and return with further information; the court chose to table the item to allow additional review rather than deny it outright.
Action taken The court did not grant the variance; it voted to table the request and asked Development Services and the developer to provide additional studies, easement documents and documentation of TxDOT approvals before the court will revisit the request.
