Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Stormwater topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board tables Huntmere impervious-surface request after mitigation, hardship questions
Summary
An impervious-surface variance request for a proposed pool and large concrete deck at 501 Huntmere was tabled after lengthy discussion about mitigation, costs and whether the applicant met the ordinance hardship standard; the applicant presented a 3-vault dry-well mitigation plan and estimated cost at about $10,000.
The Board of Zoning Appeals tabled a request for increased impervious surface at 501 Huntmere after the applicant presented an on-site mitigation plan but the board questioned whether the ordinance’s hardship requirements were met.
The agenda lists the applicant as Jonah Wachsler representing homeowner Chase White; the presenter (speaker 4) described a mitigation system of three roughly 500-gallon dry-well vaults, French drains and permeable sub-base intended to capture runoff from an expanded pool deck. The presenter said he designed the system to “mitigate the extra 10% of concrete” and estimated mitigation costs around $10,000. Staff explained the ordinance’s purpose is to reduce stormwater entering an undersized city system and said mitigation may be considered but does not by itself satisfy the hardship standard required for a variance.
Board members pressed for clearer, scaled drawings and full accounting of all impervious surfaces (driveway, walkways, pool equipment pads and any proposed sheds count toward the lot coverage). The applicant noted the pool pad itself is about 1,600 square feet and that he believed his mitigation handled more runoff than the variance he requested; however the transcript records the applicant’s total requested impervious area in a way that was unclear in the record. Given outstanding questions, a member moved to table the application; the motion was seconded and passed on roll call.
Why it matters: The city’s 40% lot-coverage rule aims to limit stormwater runoff into an aging system. The board flagged enforcement and future liability concerns (if a mitigation system were approved and later caused neighbor nuisance, responsibility rests with the homeowner).
What’s next: The board suggested the applicant return with clarified, scaled engineering plans, a full inventory of impervious surfaces (including equipment pads), and any reduced design options before the board will reconsider the variance.
