Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Impervious Surface Study topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Arlington launches public engagement on low-residential impervious-area study
Summary
County staff presented a three-phase study to consider limits on impervious surfaces in low-density residential zones, released a mapping viewer and scheduled open houses and modeling work. Staff emphasized education on county definitions and committed to broad outreach.
County staff updated the Arlington County Board on Sept. 16 about a multi-phase study to recommend limits on impervious surfaces in low-residential (R) zoning districts.
Nick Rogers and Eileen Winquist described the study charge: recommend a maximum impervious-area limit and consider related tools such as minimum contiguous plantable areas, yard/setback adjustments and modeling trade-offs across lot sizes. Staff emphasized that the county code’s definition of “impervious surface” already includes building footprints and, counterintuitively to some residents, some pervious pavers.
The study will proceed in three phases: 1) education and building shared understanding with the public (underway), 2) evaluation of options including modeling and test fits to show visual/site impacts (anticipated after the new year), and 3) drafting text amendments and public hearings for board consideration. Staff said they recently published a project plan and launched a mapping viewer that shows property-level impervious area and tree canopy.
Board members asked how tree canopy and soil/root-zone needs will be incorporated. Staff replied that urban forestry is closely involved and that modeling will include tree-canopy impacts and test-fit site layouts. Staff also outlined engagement methods—focus groups, pop-ups, open houses (first open house Oct. 20 at the Lubberton Community Center per slides), an online virtual version and multilingual outreach—to reach a broad cross-section of neighborhoods. Staff reported initial focus-group engagement with 84 participants and an online feedback pool of 463 respondents, and invited the board to help promote the events.
Staff emphasized the intent to keep lot coverage regulations and building-height rules unchanged during this first phase, per the board’s charge, while clarifying what an impervious-area limit would include and how credits for green infrastructure may apply.
Next steps include continued Phase 1 engagement, modeling and test fits in Phase 2, and returning with draft text amendment recommendations for board consideration following Phase 3.
