News
Fair Haven Council Debates Responsibility For Maintenance Of Brick Aprons In Historic District
By Ryan Fennell
FAIR HAVEN - A lengthy discussion about who is responsible for the ongoing maintenance of the recently installed brick driveway aprons in the historic district took place at the Sept. 28 borough council meeting, but no action was taken..
Council members were divided on whether the borough should be responsible for maintenance of the driveway aprons or whether maintenance should be the responsibility of homeowners.
Originally, brick sidewalks and concrete driveway aprons were to be installed in the historic district.
Several homeowners in the historic district had privately installed brick sidewalks, some of which included brick driveways and brick aprons, before the council began debating whether to install brick or concrete as part of the borough's road program.
In order for the 2009 Road Program to proceed the council ultimately authorized the installation of brick aprons for all properties in the historic district.
"As a result of some homeowners being unhappy that their brick pavers were being replaced with concrete aprons under the Road Program, we made the decision to allow brick aprons to remain," Halfacre said. "The concern is it was going to be concrete where it is now brick. The durability isn't there and how do we handle that? Do we require maintenance of the apron to be on the behalf of the homeowner or on behalf of the town if and when the bricks fail, which the engineer said is going to happen eventually?"
According to Halfacre the borough attorney provided the council with several options in the form of ordinances.
"None of the ordinances really fit what I envisioned when we started talking about this," Halfacre said.
"When we agreed to eat the cost of the brick sidewalks for everyone in the historic district we set a precedent for the balance of the Road Program so we have to assume we'll be putting in brick sidewalks for the rest of the historic district when their time comes," Halfacre added.
Councilman John Lehnert said that he was in favor of the brick sidewalks with concrete aprons and questioned why all of the aprons installed were brick.
"We did not authorize the brick aprons," Lehnert said. "However, somehow they got authorized. Once we did it, we're stuck with them. I don't think we should put the onus back on the homeowner because technically they're not their aprons or their sidewalks. However they got there, we're responsible."
Halfacre admitted that he told the borough administrator and borough engineer to authorize the brick aprons because in order to proceed with the program a decision was necessary.
Council President Jonathan Peters and Councilman James Banahan were both opposed to taking on the burden of maintenance and argued that the burden should fall on the homeowners.
"I think we're taking on a cost structure that we shouldn't take on," Peters said.
Banahan argued that brick is inferior to concrete and would require constant maintenance and that assuming the cost of the installation of the brick "is as far as we should go."
Councilman Jerome Koch had a more pragmatic approach to the situation.
"Let's just take on the onus of the maintenance and then not do the job. It's just not going to happen. We're not going to run around fixing these brick pavers. It's just not going to happen so take it on and forget about it."
Councilman Christopher Rinn was absent from the meeting.
The question of what the brick pavers were actually set upon was also raised.
It was not clear whether the pavers had been set in concrete and if so how thick or whether the pavers were simply set in stone dust.
The council decided not to take any action and allow time for finding out the specifics over what the pavers were set in, a projected cost if the borough did assume maintenance costs, and the drafting of an ordinance with respect to those findings.
Since no action was going to be taken and no ordinance was on the table for introduction, Halfacre decided to wrap up the discussion.
"I've learned from previous episodes we're not going to discuss the same issue for seventeen public meetings in a row. When this comes back we will hear from the public again," Halfacre said.
