Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Impervious Cover topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bastrop P&Z lowers impervious‑cover limits and directs staff to design water‑conservation credits
Summary
To reduce flood risk, the commission voted unanimously to lower lot‑occupation (impervious‑cover) maximums in targeted place types and directed staff to return with a credit/incentive program (rainwater harvesting, pervious pavers, shared parking) to offset impacts for developers and homeowners.
The Bastrop Planning & Zoning Commission approved changes to lot‑occupation (impervious‑cover) standards on Dec. 19 aimed at reducing downstream flood risk and preserving neighborhood character. Commissioners also directed staff to create a menu of credits for rainwater harvesting, pervious paving and other water‑conservation measures.
Why it matters: Staff explained many older parts of Bastrop rely on surface drainage and that higher impervious cover accelerates runoff into receiving channels such as Gills Branch and the Colorado River. During the presentation staff stated a modeling result: "annual floods increased by 3.3% on average for each 1 percentage point increase in impervious cover," arguing the city should reverse prior increases and move toward lower coverage (staff proposed returning to 50% maximum for single‑family areas in some zones).
Examples and tradeoffs: Staff described how many developments rely on on‑site detention ponds and cautioned about long‑term maintenance obligations that can fall to the city or neighbors if developers do not sustain facilities. Commissioners and public commenters supported lowering coverage but emphasized offering credits or incentives so property owners and developers have options — for example, rainwater harvesting systems, open‑deck credits, pervious pavers and shared parking strategies.
Commission direction and outcome: The commission voted to adopt the revised lot‑occupation chart presented at the meeting and unanimously passed a second motion directing staff to return with a research‑backed list of credits and enforcement mechanisms (including annual backflow testing and other compliance checks) for both residential and commercial projects.
Next steps: Staff will draft the credit program and return with a proposed list of measures, engineering thresholds and enforcement language; commissioners requested the credit program come back quickly to ensure the revised impervious rules are accompanied by feasible alternatives.
