The same goes for all the other oddities and icons of the people and history that have occupied this area for years. I understand that some people have put a lot of money and effort into their homes and it shows but I am not sure that we would be better off if we, as a community, decide everyone should conform to a single aesthetic ’style guide’. Old town is real and not a simulation.

I don’t want to live in Disneyland.

Was there a runoff impact or discharge study completed for the Old Town area before the city council passed this ordinance? Unlike other newer developed areas of town where water runoff due to impervious cover is considered in advance of the design, Old Town was here before there were cars and the roads were dirt. Old Town already has a runoff problem with minimal infrastructure to handle it, and as homeowners we are required by the city to have a “discharge study” conducted before we can “alter the existing flow of the discharge across our property.”

I want to explore the reasoning that led the council to believe that increasing the impervious cover in Old Town is going to help ecologically, since a mere 10% increase in runoff due to impervious cover has a substantial negative impact on aquatic life. We sit on top of a hill, and it’s all going to run straight down to the river, carrying any oil and contaminants along with it.

Many cities are working to increase the amount of pervious cover, not the other way around, as a way of reducing runoff. Oil drips from a vehicle are better to be caught in the soil, better yet grass, where it can be intercepted and remediated by the enzymes in the soil. There is a much greater problem with the oil that is on the surface of the streets, so using the excuse that this is for ecological reasons does not hold much weight. Our neighbors with small lots have gravel drives that they park on that lead to a single car garage, as the designs of that era were. They are already near or at the maximum allowable impervious cover for their lot with no where else to park. The soil underneath these pervious drives has been handling and remediating minor drips of oil and preventing it from running off and into the river for decades.

I want to know if the ordinance decision was reached with the inclusion of environmental science, or just appealing to constituent complaints over aesthetic appearance of our neighborhood.

I would like to know what Environmental Engineering firm put their stamp on a document that states than an impervious surface should be required. It will certainly be the best surface to hold the oil until the next rain and then allow it all to collect with the increased runoff to head for the river.

I am in complete agreement that properties would look much better if the cars were parked in an “approved drive” instead of on the lawn, but requiring the surface to be impervious will not be good for Old Town.

The historical overlay for Old Town should continue to allow for pervious drives, and allow the owners of the property the freedom to park on them, just keep the cars off the grass.

Parking in the front yard raises no safety concerns; the only impact it has is aesthetic and should therefore not be the domain of the city government. City Council should be focusing on spending the city budget wisely, bringing business to town, beautifying the parks, etc., in other words, items that are probably harder to achieve and therefore not as fun to our councilmembers as the pet projects they’re currently championing.