Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Impervious Coverage topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Enfield planners debate switching from building‑coverage to impervious‑coverage rules for small lots; more study ordered
Summary
Staff presented a small‑lot sample showing a switch to impervious coverage would make many properties nonconforming; commissioners agreed to keep current building‑coverage approach for now, consider a 30% threshold and study setbacks for impervious surfaces before any public hearing.
Planning staff presented data showing that, for small residential lots, changing the zoning standard from building coverage to impervious‑surface coverage without raising coverage limits would create many new nonconforming properties.
Staff member Steve summarized a random sample of roughly 35 single‑family parcels across five neighborhoods and found that average parcel size was about 17,200 square feet and that building coverage averaged 12 percent. When driveways, pools and other impervious surfaces were counted, average coverage rose to about 20–29 percent; only 19 of the sampled 35 parcels (about 54 percent) would remain compliant under a straightforward conversion. "So to just change from building coverage to impervious coverage, that would create a lot of nonconformities," Steve said.
Commissioners discussed options: keep building coverage but refine definitions (for example, not counting above‑ or in‑ground pools toward building coverage), adopt setback requirements for impervious surfaces to limit runoff near property lines, or set a higher impervious‑coverage percentage (staff suggested testing 30 percent) for smaller lots. Several commissioners favored additional study and outreach before any formal proposal or public hearing.
Concerns included inconsistent aerial imagery and the difficulty of staff making consistent judgements from GIS or near‑map photos; staff recommended asking applicants for site plans when clarity is required. The commission asked staff to run further analysis, including a test of a 30 percent impervious limit and examination of how changes would affect current homeowners and new construction. No vote or regulation change occurred; the matter was referred for further study and is expected to return to the commission for possible public hearing if a rule change is proposed.
