Why the house will sit so high above the ground While the ground was still frozen, Dave Colby, my builder, brought in Larry Godfrey and his big digger to determine where and how much of a basement I could dig. We knew generally that the house site was on granite "ledge," which is the opposite of rocks and dirt. Larry tried to move and to break up some of the the rocky promontories, and had little success. He suggested that we consider dynamiting a hole for the foundation, as it would be less disruptive, and probably less expensive, because erecting forms to pour a foundation in a rectangular hole is quick and easy.I spoke to my friend, Win, who knows about such things, and he advised me that blasting was a normal way to proceed under these circumstances. My initial impulse was to do the neighborly thing, and let the adjacent property owners know what I was considering. One neighbor lives 500 miles away, and the other is a full time resident. I will let the series of emails below tell the story. Only the names have been changed to protect the record.
Here is how it started out in mid March:
Date: March 13, 2004
To: Neighbor 1, Neighbor 2
Subject: unforeseen problems at Idle PineGreetings Neighbors,
As you know, Jane and I are planning to build a house on the high ground behind our cabins. I had hoped that the rocks would be small enough that I could simply dig a foundation, given a big enough digger. The big enough digger visited the site this week and did some exploratory digging. What he found caused him to suggest that I blast the ledge before digging the foundation.
It will be less expensive, and the house will be able to sit three or four feet lower, which we like. My builder, Dave Colby, says that the blaster will lay down steel mesh blankets to contain the blast and prevent any damage to surrounding structures, trees, etc. He says he has watched these guys blast a trench right next to an existing building, with no untoward effects.
The blaster is available now, and I am inclined to go ahead, perhaps in as soon as a week or two. He would drill holes where we want the foundation to go, blast for a morning, and go away. Then the digger would return and begin excavation.
Last summer Jane and I liked waking up on the lake so much we are thinking of making Idle pine our primary residence, in the summertime at least. So I took my original 1600 square foot idea and added space and storage up to about 1900 square feet. It will be single story, wood construction, eventually with a detached garage. We hope to begin construction late this spring and are in no hurry. If you are so inclined you can see our plans and design discussions here: http://tocayo.net/pics/lake_fairlee/planning_main.html
I will try to phone you too, as I hope to get your approval before I go ahead. Please feel free to call me at 415-927-2233 or email if you have any advice, concerns, or interesting news.-Skip Brown
P.S. My new well has been drilled, in the right place this time. I will decommission the old one early this summer. Jane and I plan to be in residence in the cabins beginning June 1st.
Date: Mar 14, 2004
From: Neighbor 1
Subject: unforeseen problems at Idle PineDear Skip:
Thank you for your e-mail of yesterday concerning the possibility of blasting on your property. I must tell you upfront, and in all candor, that I am extremely concerned about blasting taking place so close to my property.
I am reasonably confident that a good and experienced blaster will proceed in such a way as to minimize, if not entirely eliminate, the possibility of chunks of granite crashing through my roof or windows. And I am equally sure that you will see that whoever you select is properly insured and bonded, just in case my confidence should be misplaced.
However, projectiles are not what worry me. What worries me, and I think it should concern you as well, is the effect the ground-conducted shock wave would have on the structure of my house and, perhaps, even more significant, on my well, water and septic systems.
I confess I do not know what the law concerning blasting is in Vermont. I do not know if my permission would be required. I tell you quite frankly, that, if my permission were required, I would be loathe to give it in the absence of an appropriate surety bond being in place, and maybe not even then. Again, while I cannot speak to Vermont law specifically, I believe that, in most jurisdictions, the law imposes strict liability on all those responsibile for blasting activities. In plain English, "strict liability" means liability regardless of fault or absence of fault. You might want to investigate this issue before proceeding further. In any event, I'm sure you will appreciate that, strict liablity or no, I would expect you to pay the costs of any repairs to my property that your blasting necessitated.
I hope that you will accept this communication in the spirit in which it has been sent. I believe that the honest and forthright expression of concerns, even more than good fences, makes good neighbors. . . . . . .(initials)I also received a telephone message from Neighbor 1 (wife), who sounded quite worried, and urged me not to go ahead with any blasting. I pushed Dave to get me more information about blasting, blasting insurance, and the actual danger to adjoining propertyowners, and I made plans to go to Fairlee.
Date: Mar 23, 2004
To: Neighbor 1 (wife)
Subject Re unforeseen problems at Idle PineDear Neighbor 1 (wife),
I am sorry not to have responded to your telephone message earlier. I picked it up too late to call you back east, then it got lost in the shuffle. I appreciate Michael's thoughtful and concise reply, and want to be able to answer his concerns. The simple fact is that I have been waiting until I have something worthwhile to tell you.
I have been trying to get some clear information about the real hazards to adjacent properties as well as legal liability associated with blasting. This has been made more difficult by my distance and schedules at both ends. I have learned a lot anecdotally, but want to glean a more complete understanding before I make any decision.
Please know that I will be sure to speak with you when I have more information, and in any case before so much as a firecracker goes bang next door.Thank you for your patience,
-SkipSo I traveled to Fairlee and met with the excavator and the blaster. I learned a lot about the blasting business, some of which is in the next email. I also took the measure of the man who has spent his whole career "playing with dynamite!"
Date: March 28, 2004
To: Neighbor 1 (both H and W)
Subject: an explosive issueDear Neighbor 1 (husband and wife),
I am in Fairlee and met today with Dave Colby, my builder, Larry Godfrey, my excavator, and [Alan?] Dyke of Linrock, Inc., the blaster. My friend Win Ameden, the director of buildings and grounds for the Aloha Foundation, was also there. Based on the preliminary digging Larry did two weeks ago, I am faced with the choice of building the house higher off the grade and without a full basement, or blasting and getting a full basement with lower cost overall (because forming and pouring an irregular foundation is much more expensive than a 'square' one). Even absent the cost consideration I want to pursue the possibility of blasting, because having the house sit lower to the ground will mean less steps up to it as well as a less intrusive visual profile.
The blaster is intimately acquainted with property damage issues. His regular procedure (driven, I gather, by conditions of his insurance policy) includes a preliminary 'survey' by an independent expert whose specialty is evaluating possible blasting damage. This gives him information about potential problem areas, and can constrain or preclude his going ahead. In addition, before he begins blasting, he mounts a seismograph between the blasting area and the adjacent property, so he can monitor the strength of the shock at a distance when he begins blasting. The other three (Dave, Larry, and Win) each had experience with the blaster, and had watched him work just a few feet from an existing foundation. Apparently the notion of a 'shaped charge' is not just an artifact of the movies as I had thought.
I spoke to the blaster about your concerns as evidenced in [husband's] email of March 14th. He has forwarded to me his Certificate of Liability Insurance, with blasters liability coverage of $2 million and an umbrella liability of $4 million. He identified the expert he uses for the preliminary survey as David Thompson of Orford. I hope you will grant him access to your property. I am sure [husband] will verify this independently, but he was of the opinion that refusing to grant access would harm a future tort claim. I only have your home phone number in Philadelphia. If you would prefer that he contact you at another number, or that he speak with [your brother] or someone else locally, let me know and I will pass that information along.
In addition I want to bring in an expert to measure your well for static level and flow rate. Bruce Larrow does this, what I just learned they call "hydrofrakking" (spelling unknown). With your approval this would be done both before and after the blasting, and will evidence any damage to your well.
Yes, [husband], I am acquainted with the concept of 'strict liablilty' under the law. The blaster's family is in its third generation of this inherently hazardous occupation, and is intimate with the issue. Of course I acknowledge your right to be made whole in the event of any loss, but my intent is to avoid any such loss in the first place. I will not proceed unless I am assured that no damage to your property will occur. (I am equally concerned about damage to my well and cabins, which are significantly closer to the site than yours.)
I hope that you will bear with me through this process. Whether or not we blast my construction will certainly cause you inconvenience this summer. I want to do what I can to minimize this. I have spoken to [Nieghbor 2] and at his suggestion will have the excavator add crushed rock to the common driveway before he begins to tear it up with heavy machinery. Of course we will repair it to the same or better condition after the big trucks are through. Please let me know how I can make my construction less unpleasant for you. I want to (continue to) be a good neighbor.-Skip Brown
While I was in Fairlee I met Neighbor 2 out working in his yard. We had spoken in the phone since my first email. He recalled that his neighbors (the late parents of Neighbor 1 (wife)) had prevented him from blasting when he built his house in the early 1990's. Nonethelewss he was supportive of my intent.
Meanwhile my email drew a quick reaction.
Date: March 29, 2004
From: Neighbor 1 (wife)
Subject: Re: an explosive issueI am responding to your most recent e-mail, and must admit that I am extremely shocked that you are planning to go forward with the blasting when the reaction from all neighbors was very negative.
In my humble, uneducated opinion, blasting a shale ledge on the shore of a peaceful lake so that you can have a full basement is bordering on the absurd. My parents and [Neighbor 2] have all at one point faced the fact that conditions for building on the lake were less than ideal and that compromises had to be made.
We have tried to be good neighbors and to allow you access as needed to our property. I am not denying you access now to our property, but I do intend to investigate what rights we have to prevent you from blasting.
Yes, I am being emotional about this and I do not intend to be dissuaded by some fancy blasting expert whose main interest is to make a profit, not to preserve the environment.Then Neighbor 1's husband responded as well:
Date: March 30, 2004
To: Neighbor 1 (wife)
Subject: Re: an explosive issueDear Neighbor 1 (wife),
I guess we will have to disagree about this one for a while. Your reaction is emotional, I agree, and it is understandable. As I wrote, what I am going forward with is a consideration of the benefits and hazards of blasting. I have not yet made a final decision. And [husband's] email of March 14th is the only "very negative" reaction I have heard from a neighbor. (until this one from you) [Neighbor 2] is appropriately concerned about damage to his property, but not "anti-blasting" per se.
I am trying to understand the source of your objection. You do not mention damage to your property, as [husband] did, but the "peaceful lake" and "preserving the environment." Are you suggesting that blasting might do damage to the lake? That removing a hunk from the shale ledge hurts it? As to disturbing the peace, which is more disturbing, a morning with a few loud explosions or a month of jack hammers? I do not know if the latter is a realistic estimate, but I have been told that building a foundation without blasting will be a long and expensive process.
Certainly the blasting expert is in business for profit. But he and his family have been living and blasting in the upper valley since before your parents bought their property. After meeting Alan Dyke I expect he would take serious offense at the suggestion that he is uninterested in the environment, let alone that he is "fancy."
Anyway, I return to the question I posed: I want to give the estimator a number to contact you to obtain access to your house. Ought I give your home phone, or the one I have just found below at [company name]?Thank you again,
-Skip
Date: March 30, 2002
From: Neighbor 1 (husband)
Subject: Explosive issuesDear Skip:
I received and was considering your e-mail of the 28th, with the intent of responding to it today. Before I could do so, I came across [wife's] response to you (as to which I have no comment), and your response to her (also no comment), which rendered moot much of what I might have said.
You should, first of all, understand that I, not Jane, nor Jane and I, am the owner of 109 Idle Pine. Accordingly, you may wish to reconsider the advisability of communicating with her instead of me on matters of this nature.
Secondly, I categorically forbid any inspection or testing of my property in my absence. I will deem any violation of this prohibition to constitute willful trespass and will respond to it accordingly.
Thirdly, while I in no way approve of, or consent to, your plans to blast rather than dig, I have no intentions of actively attempting to prevent your blasting. And it is my fondest desire, should you nevertheless proceed with blasting, that it constitute a total non-event. If so, then my reaction will be, as in basketball, "no harm, no foul". If, on the other hand, my fondest desire is not realized, then, you and I will need to deal with the result at that time.
If my position is as clear as I have tried to make it, there is no need for further back and forth on this issue. Of course, if it is not, please don't hesitate to communicate with me at any time. And I do hope that you will continue to keep me currently apprised of what is going to happen, and when.Sincerely. . . . . . . . . . . [initials]
Date: March 31, 2004
To: Neighbor 1 (husband)
Subject: Re: Explosive issuesDear Neighbor 1 (husband),
Thank you for being so clear.
I will give the blaster your name and numbers, and make sure they understand your conditions. I will insist that they be as unobtrusive as possible, and ask in return that you allow them reasonable access at your convenience.
Skip
Perhaps I was optomistic, but I fired this off to my builder.
Date: March 31, 2004
To: dave colby
Subject: Fwd: Re: Explosive issuesDave,
Please see the latest volley in the battle of idle pine, below.
I think [Neighbor 1] will allow an inspection if he is present.
His work number is xxx-xxx-xxxx, his home is xxx-xxx-xxxx.
Go ahead and give them to David Thompson and Bruce Larrow.
Please convey his insistence that he personally be present at any inspection or testing. Let's sit back and see what happens!-Skip
(remainder of message omitted)Later that day I followed it with this:
Date: March 31, 2004
To: dave colby
Subject: further blasted adventuresDave,
This afternoon I returned David Thompson's call and gave him [Neighbor 2's] numbers and filled him in on our discussion to date.
This evening [neighbor 2] called and suggested that he is changing his position and will attempt to prevent my blasting. It seems that a few years ago when he brought in a blaster to make holes for his two stone driveway gateposts the blaster told him that it could not be done safely without danger of damage to his house. His house is "pinned" right to the ledge, which runs from the end of his driveway right under his house. He is of the opinion that my site is on the same ledge (I agree) and that blasting would therefore pose a threat to his house. He also explained that the blaster advised that damage to his house could be invisible and not appear for decades. He agreed to inquire and provide the name of the blaster who gave him that advice.
I think [Neighbor 2] might be more amenable to facts and reasonable persuasion than [Neighbor 1]. Do you think I should give this information to Allen Dyke or David Thompson? I want to find out exactly what this other blaster said, and try to square it with what I am hearing from Allen Dyke. I still want to go ahead but it would be nice if I could explain with facts and professional opinion why the risks are minimal.I hope this doesn't delay our start,
-SkipA week later the inspector had not heard back from Neighbor 1. Neighbor 2 had not replied to my inquiries. I asked a Vermont attorney I know to help me analyze my potential liability exposure. At the blaster's suggestion, I sent certified letters to both neighbors asking for their permission to do a pre-blasting inspection, and suggesting that refusing such an inspection might later be construed as hiding a pre-existing defect.
Neighbor 1 did finally reply by email.
Date: April 14, 2004
From: Neighbor 1 (husband)
Subject: (no subject)Dear Skip:
David Thompson did leave me two telephone messages, to which, I confess, I neglected to respond. I am aware of the possible ramifications of there being no pre-blast inspection of my property. However, if the situation were reversed, if you were in Vermont and some stranger wanted to inspect your unoccupied house in Larkspur (for whatever legitimate reason), would you say, "Sure the key's under the doormat. Go in and inspect and test to your heart's content"? I suspect not; nor will I. Sincerely . . . . . . . (initials)
Date: April 14, 2004
To: Neighbor 1 (husband)
Subject: Re: (no subject)Dear Neighbor 1 (husband),
I might have said, "Call my brother-in-law who lives nearby and arrange for access at his convenience and with his supervision." In any case I respect your opinion and will proceed accordingly.
Cordially,
-Skip
Date: April 14, 2004
From: Neighbor 1 (husband)
Subject: Re: (no subject)I have a great deal of regard for, and trust in, my brother-in-law, but he is not me, and the house is not his.
The rest of the story proceeds without the benefit of colorful emails. Everybody I spoke to in the upper valley had good things to say about Alan Dyke, and felt generally that the neighbors' concerns were unfounded. The head Selectman of West Fairlee told me, "It's your property, and if you want to blast your rocks on your property, there's nothing anyone else can say about that!" My attorney confirmed that I would be covered by the blaster's insurance. He, too, had heard good things about alan Dyke.
I explained to the blaster the difficulty I was encountering getting permission to perform the pre-blast inspections. He requested that I forward the correspondence from my neighbors, most of which you have just read. Shortly thereafter he decided to withdraw his offer to do the blasting. He said he was shocked by the tone of the neighbor's emails. He sounded sincerely apologetic, explaining that mine was a small job for him, and that a lawsuit seemed almost probable. Even one that he would eventually win could cost him days of depsoitions and unneeded hassle.
So now we are proceeding to dig and pour a foundation without blasting. Our basement will be considerably smaller, and the house will sit higher up off the ground. We will compensate as much as we can with grading and landscaping.
Idle Pine Home page Idle Pine Contents page
8 May 2004
void where prohibited