Replies

1. 
   averagejoe | Oct 16, 2005 06:07am | #1

   Bad design...really inconsiderate to others in the neighborhood who use the sidewalk. It makes someone who is out for a stroll feel like they are crossing over YOUR property. I see that and I want to go down to the street, around the driveway, and get back on the sidewalk on the other side. There are other things to pick apart as well, but that is the most glaring.

2. 
   Piffin | Oct 16, 2005 02:04pm | #2

   I like it. Looks to me like there was an attempt to deal with melding the slope of the drive with hjaving a level sidewalk.

    

    

   Welcome to the
   Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime.
    where ...
   Excellence is its own reward!

3. 
   WayneL5 | Oct 16, 2005 04:59pm | #3

   It looks like when the old driveway was taken up the sidewalk joints did not line up with the edge of the driveway, so instead of pouring small areas of concrete to fill the sidewalk back in they just did it with stone.

   It looks silly to me, but I disagree with Averagejoe that it is inconsiderate.  It is normal for the driveway to run continuously from garage to street with the sidewalk breaking on either side of it.  This is no different except for the silly wings.

1. 
   Framer | Oct 16, 2005 06:22pm | #4

   The issue I have is not the fact that the pavers continued all the way through to the street is one piece. It's that the driveway whether it's Pavers, Asphalt or Concrete always stops at the sidewalk and the sidewalk is concrete and the apron is concrete. So every house in the neighborhood has concrete sidewalks.This guy just ran the pavers straight through and now the sidewalk is different then the rest of block.This is the way I've always seen it done in Residential not Commercial and like I said in my first post I've never seen someone run pavers as the sidewalk also. The driveways always stop at the sidewalks. I don't think it has anything to do with sloping issue because it's not that bad.Well, I just got off the phone with my friend who is a builder and he said that he's been seeing it done like that a lot of places, not just commercial. I guess I was just surprised to see it and you can do what you want with your own sidewalks even though the State owns them if they're broke you have to fix them but if you want to put pavers in you can when you file for permits.Here's how I've always seen it done. This is my neighbors house.Joe Carola

1. 
   Framer | Oct 16, 2005 06:44pm | #5

   Well, Here's how I admit that I'm a GOON or I just don't look at houses as good as I think I do or I don't look two doors down and see that my other neighbors asphalt driveway continues as the sidewalk and apron.You can actually see it at the end of my second picture of my first neighbors house.Joe Carola

   Edited 10/16/2005 11:45 am ET by Framer

4. 
   Griff | Oct 16, 2005 07:09pm | #6

   Reasonable people can disagree about whether this method looks pleasant or unsightly, but several facts cannot be overlooked.

   The local municipality in which you live generally owns about the first 10' of land from the curb or end of the street in towards your house. So, theoretically, the municipality's DOT or Dept. of Roads or whatever they call it could come by, rip it out and install a new blacktop apron and a new concrete sidewalk. And, then bill you for the work! More likely, some inspector will see it and issue you a Directive to restore the concrete/asphalt scheme to match what was there originally.

   Secondly, more importantly, by having done this work himself, the homeowner has now relieved the municipality of liability and placed it squarely on his/her own head. Now, should someone stumble and fall in the area or some other accident occur in which someone is hurt or some property is damaged, the homeowner alone is financially responsible. Since it used to be the municipality's property, the HO normally wouldn't have any culpability for accidents happening on the sidewalk or apron (unless, of course, the HO failed to shovel snow or allowed ice to form, thereby allowing a dangerous condition to develop). Its questionable whether the HO's insurance company would even offer coverage for the incident - normally they shy away from providing you coverage when you create a dangerous condition on someone else's property. If that's true, and the carrier's disclaimer upheld, then the HO risks losing his/her house or other assets to pay for any judgment.

   Suppose little Johnny Knowitall from up the street comes riding along on the sidewalk on his new bike, hits the cobblestones and loses his balance causing him to fall to the ground whereupon he suffers grievous and permanent bodily injuries, including brain damage (since this delightful 7 year old took his helmet off) from a fractured skull, and severe facial scarring, loss of teeth and impairment to the sight of at least one eye. The injuries require several surgeries under general anesthesia, cause so much time in recovery that Johnny loses a year in school, and is forever left with a permanent brain impairment which makes him even more deranged than you knew him to be, rendered him uglier than he**due to the scars on his face, dental implants, and the thick, thick corrective lenses through which he can, on a good day, tell night from day.

   Implausible? Perhaps. But, suppose the cobblestones caused him to lose control of his bike so that he veered off into the street directly into the path of an oncoming vehicle. What injuries do you think he suffer then? Not the band-aid type for sure.

   In either case, the HO would be financially responsible and possibly set adrift without insurance coverage to protect him/her. Not a pleasant result of an attempt to dress up his/her property. The cobblestones should be removed and a typical concrete sidewalk and asphalt apron in conformance with municipal plans should be installed. Then the HO should contact his insurance agent and increase his liability coverage so he can sleep at night.

   Griff
1. 
   Piffin | Oct 16, 2005 08:11pm | #7

   Tjhe details you are explaining might be true in some cities but are definitely not in others. State liability laws will vary also. Wher I was familiar with this, YOU owned the land to the curb, but the town could tell you to fix the sidewalk and the curb and they could assess a fee for doing it on you if you did not comply in a reasonable time. You paid taxes on that land and your HO insurance covered accidents there.Also, in places where the town owns that strip, they would not lose liability for negligence there just because you took on the job of improving or changing it, but I would assume that gives them controlling interest in deciding how to do this.Joe, I like the neighbor's that stops at the sidewalk best. I see your leaes are startiung to fall down there. 

    

   Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!

1. 
   Griff | Oct 17, 2005 12:08am | #8

   Thanks for the reply Piffin.

   I think you're referring to a very small minority of jurisdictions where municipal ownership actually ends at the curb line or, in the absence of a curb, at the end of the paved road surface. The vast, vast majority of municipal jurisdictions across the country own the roads for a certain distance from the center line and permit certain limited development (i.e., grass to be planted) by the adjoining HO in what is generally about a 10' strip of land on either side. [This undeveloped area is left to permit expansion of the road if required in the future or the installation/repair of storm or sewer lines, without having to go through a condemnation and taking procedure.] But the sidewalks, if installed in that 10 foot strip, are municipally owned property. They are not owned by the HO in most jurisdictions. [Of course, for private streets (such as in condo developments) where some landowner's association owns the paved areas, these rules do not apply.]  As a result of local ordinances, the abutting property owners are responsible for raking leaves and clearing snow and ice off the sidewalk and apron. However, since the HO doesn't own the property, the HO should not be paying property taxes on that land. That's true all over the nation. If you're the exception, get down to your Town Hall and start complaining and get a refund for past years paid.

   With respect to the absence of liability of the municipality if the HO materially changes the sidewalk or drive apron, I'm afraid I was unclear. I was talking about the practical effect of that action by the HO. Sure, the municipality would be named in a lawsuit because it's name would turn up on a title search the plaintiff's lawyer would conduct. But, that doesn't mean that it would be found liable by a jury or judge. It would have a "claim over" against  the homeowner for any award against it. Having represented many municipalities in these instances, as well as many HO's, during a 25 year life as an Insurance Defense Attorney, I know that there's a strong likelihood that summary judgment would be granted to the municipality long before the matter reached trial stage, let alone verdict. And, any aberration in a trial court would certainly be reversed on appeal.

   That's why any attorney worth his salt will tell a client to ignore any notice from the municipality to correct a material defect in the sidewalk or drive apron - you fix it and someone's injured, it's your fault; if the municipality fixes it, it's liable, not you.  I know this from personal experience too - I received notification to repair a sidewalk badly raised because of tree roots from a tree located between the sidewalk and the road. I ignored the notices despite repeated dire threats from my local town. Well, one day, they came and fixed it. I was billed, of course, but later when someone riding a bike on that repaired sidewalk hit the tree that caused the sidewalk damage in the first place, I was not responsible for the injuries because I neither owned the sidewalk or tree, nor had I changed any condition of the sidewalk or tree - in short, I wasn't negligent in anything I did or failed to do. Simple: Not my property, not my responsibility.

   As a technical explanation of the principle of law at work here: The HO's installation of the cobblestones, if shown to be the proximate cause of the accident, would be an intervening act of negligence that would shield the original landowner (the municipality) from any responsibility. Better tear them out and replace them with nice smooth cement built according to specifications adopted by the local municipal government. And hope you get it done before someone injures themselves.Griff

1. 
   Piffin | Oct 17, 2005 02:00am | #9

   I won't argue with you on any of those liability issues, but on the point of where ownership starts and ends, i am not an exception. in most of th eplaces I have lived, it is the other way around. The private ownership does go to the curb and the owner pays tax on it, and is required to maintain it to town satisfaction, while being precluded from using it for structures - that last point being where we agree, because the town has future intrest in it and present interest in safety.I am not just talking out my hat on this. I have had to research it for various permits, court challenges, and various other exceptions in those towns I have lived in, only one a larger city though. it is at the tiome the town actually needs to widen that a taking occours. Modern developements are under more modern developement restrictions which do tend to require wider street layouts being ceded to the municipality, and that may be what you are more familiar with. Othe5rwise, I stand on my original statement that it is not the same in all states and all municipalities. not calling you wrong, just saying that it doesn't universally apply. 

    

   Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!

1. 
   Griff | Oct 17, 2005 03:41am | #12

   OK. Can't argue with your experience. However, I still think the cobblestones are potentially dangerous to pedestrians and bikes, and I'd continue to argue for caution and removal.

   Why would someone expect to be able to build something right up to the curb line?

   Or, did I misunderstand you? Where you referring to set backs and the like?Griff

2. 
   Piffin | Oct 17, 2005 03:51am | #13

   Setbacks. 

    

   Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!

3. 
   Griff | Oct 17, 2005 04:06am | #14

   Understand. That makes sense.Griff

2. 
   Piffin | Oct 17, 2005 02:07am | #10

   I see you have some interest in Ireland. Maybe you could add some background to my travelouge titled Irish construction details. I'm sure you have a lot of good info every one would be interested in.http://forums.taunton.com/tp-breaktime/messages?msg=64551.1 

    

   Welcome to the Taunton University of Knowledge FHB Campus at Breaktime. where ... Excellence is its own reward!

1. 
   Griff | Oct 17, 2005 03:18am | #11

   Not sure I can add much - I was only there once for a short-stop over on my way to the continent some years ago. Had time to visit my ancestors homeland in Ennis in County Claire in the South West portion of the island. Saw the 'ol sod which was still being farmed by one of my grandmother's brothers, name of Owen but everyone seemed to call him "Onie" - never married which seemed par for the course.  Used to wear a blue suit, white shirt and tie out into the fields! Odd habits.

   As I did travel around a bit, I met the same inquisitiveness that you mentioned. Are you of Irish extraction and if so, to whom were you related and where did your people come from? Once you established your bona fides, it seems that there was nothing they wouldn't do to help you. Invariably, however, they also inquired whether you had time to stop in (to the local pub, I assume they meant) for a jar or a pint. Never did, but I also assumed I'd be buying if I went.

   I agree that the roads would be very hazardous for bike riders. Between the narrowness of the largely unpaved local roads, the hills and curves, the stonewalls that absolutely blocked your view of intersecting roads and the crazy, reckless way they drove (not to mention the absolutely dismal weather), you'd literally take your life in your hands were you to set out on a bike to go anywhere. Saw many on horseback, but they rode inside the stonewalls in the pastures and along the edges of farmland.Griff

2. 
   storme | Oct 17, 2005 04:40am | #15

   My understanding here in California is that the HO owns all the land to the curb but the public has a right of way over it, a right of way that the HO is responsible for maintaining. i.e. to create a sidewalk. Periodically the municipal authority checks things out, realizes the sidewalk is a mess and fixes it (and then send the HO the bill). Just happened to us a couple of years ago actually.Any lawyers on this board?

1. 
   Griff | Oct 17, 2005 05:16am | #16

   Yeah, well, that's California. The rest of us have trouble doing California. :)

   And, yes, I speak from that particular persuasion. Not active anymore. But I hope y'all don't hold that against me. Found making sawdust more rewarding.Griff

1. 
   storme | Oct 17, 2005 05:42am | #17

   not at all, I respect the law - think it's flawed too but I respect it nonetheless. Like anything, all it takes is a few #### to mess it up for everyone else. I respect the building inspection regime as well - not that I like participating in it but every time a 6.x earthquake kills 20k people in some other part of the world I send a silent 'thank you' to all the inspectors out there that make sure it doesn't happen here.Re: California, we're different basically because we're more crowded, you get more people you have to start regulating things more. 3 guys fishing, no big deal, 3,000 guys fishing, you need a Fish and Game. Doesn't mean I like it, but you can see the need.

1. 
   Griff | Oct 17, 2005 06:13am | #18

   Never been north of SF, but I got the impression that it wasn't crazy crowded like LA and the South. Am I wrong?

   And, I know all about regulations for the need. I agree some of them have merit. Then again, like you said, it only takes a few #$^*@^@ to screw it up for everyone.Griff

2. 
   storme | Oct 17, 2005 06:31am | #19

   it's a big place, LA is crowded and the SF bay area is dense but the stretch between is quiet and north of SF (which is actually in the center of the state) is pretty quiet. The different parts have distinct personalities too. There's a traditional rivalry between North and South (read: LA has been trying for years to take water from the SF Bay) and the politics are different. LA is more conservative, SF liberal. Reagan came from LA for example. North of SF traditionally has been some combination of hippies and rednecks but lately, it's been wine country developers. Sadly, It's all getting generic now that developers are moving. I'm over simplifying of course.I'm from the Bay Area (Berkeley actually) and wouldn't live anywhere else. It's a wildly creative area - when I was growing up UC Berkeley ran an ad showing all the Nobel prizes they had won (19) and then all the Nobel prizes awarded to the USSR (23 I think at that point) with the caption: "We're falling behind, please give!" It's a crazy place but it's home.umm, sidewalks, yeah...