CM1995
Administrator
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2007
- Messages
- 13,392
- Location
- Alabama
- Occupation
- Running what I brung and taking what I win
Yair . . . Reel hip. I don't see your point mate . . . or the counties point. That's the next owners problem not chroniekon's
The next owner here might want to bring a ten ton load of gravel in . . . well he'll have to upgrade my bridge and culverts, I use a two ton dump or a trailer behind my ute.
Cheers.
That's my thoughts on the subject as well Scrub. I know all too well what Reel Hip is talking about though, as I have had to deal with it as well, the local muni's try to protect the "future" owner at the current owners expense.
Using your example Scrub, what if the future owner of your property needs to bring a 40 ton crane for lord knows what. Does that mean you need to put in culverts and a bridge to carry the weight? Where does it stop?:beatsme Personally I think that is over stepping their authority but since when does a gov't inspector ever think about that.
The assumption that the inspector needs to look after future owners is asinine IMO. Their job is to enforce the codes that apply to the improvements/structure that you are currently building. I guess it's just a by-product of our litigious society..
Although I do agree with the "Fire Truck Test". I have put in a few long drives for estate homes and part of the final inspection is to make sure the FD can get their firetruck up/down the drive and any bridges or culverts can support the weight. However this is an issue of the owners personal safety and not an assumption of what a future owner may do.