Laserfiche WebLink
In addition to the deck issue, applicant is requesting you <br />consider the merits of other types of porous pavements for drive- <br />way, patio or sidewalk use. In talking with the local supplier <br />of the "Seamco" stone/epoxy product, (Exhibit E), he notes that <br />it is recommended to be used over a concrete or asphalt slab so <br />that the epoxy in the rock layer will monolithically bond with <br />the slab. They stated it would take a 2-3" thick layer to have <br />even minimal. stability over a sand filter, and wouldn't recommend <br />this method except for small areas such as sidewalks. <br />The applicant has previously asked you to consider a drain - <br />field type run-off storage and release system. Presuming that <br />this is technically feasible, and presuming it will perform the <br />function of filtering run-off before it gets into the lake, <br />should we start granting hardcover variances on a "control struc- <br />ture" basis? Will this undermine the credibility of the hard- <br />cover ordinance, since the public will perceive the additional <br />hardcover but not the invisible control method? <br />Finally, the issue of driveway paving in general. We do rot <br />have a code section requiring permits to pave driveways, hence <br />the typical pattern is that existing non -paved driveways and <br />aprons (dirt or gravel) often are transformed into less permeable <br />asphalt or concrete surfaces. The tradeoffs may be questionable. <br />If we have a "gully washer" that would erode a gravel or dirt <br />driveway where the run-off reaching the lake from a paved drive- <br />way would contain much less silt and sediment, which is <br />preferable? Should we require permits for driveway paving in LR <br />Districts? <br />