Video index

1. Public Hearing to receive citizen input on amendments to the South Windsor Code of Ordinances, Chapter 86, Article III. Sidewalks

called to order 7:15 p.. McCann - I am a proponent of this ordinance. We brought forward amendment to our ordinance after receiving opinion from TA. Monetary liability really are of questionable enforceability. Landowners also find it less desireable to have sidewalks in front of their homes (abutting). The ordinance will still keep the abutting landowner to have to pay for sidewalks if they are the person or their contractor has damaged the sidewalks. Public Bob Dickinson, 19 Birch Road - support the change to the sidewalk ordinance as proposed. This change needs to be made to make sidewalks more acceptable to homeowners. This will create safety to walkers and pedestrians. Providing sidewalks will subside concerns. Roy Normen, Homestead Drive, very please to see progress being made after 20 years. The only time abutter would be responsible for damages to sidewalk would be if the abutter is responsible for the damage. The other issue is the liability for the sidewalk as a homeowner. do not want to be liable for pedestrians. Skip Bourke, 91 Mariol Drive, in favor of this ordinance changes and will think it will make safer for pedestrians. Ken Sek, 285 Griffin Road - also member of SWW& WW - in favor of ordinance changes. Live in development with sidewalks and general practice is that people get out there and shovel their sidewalks. People get used to it when they hae the sidewalks. Straw Poll those in favor of changes to the ordinance - 5 those in opposition to changes of the ordinance -0 closed 7:24 p.m.

Oct 01, 2012 Public Hearing to receive citizen input on amendments to the South Windsor Code of Ordinances, Chapter 86, Article III. Sidewalks.

Full agenda
Share this video

1. Public Hearing to receive citizen input on amendments to the South Windsor Code of Ordinances, Chapter 86, Article III. Sidewalks

called to order 7:15 p.. McCann - I am a proponent of this ordinance. We brought forward amendment to our ordinance after receiving opinion from TA. Monetary liability really are of questionable enforceability. Landowners also find it less desireable to have sidewalks in front of their homes (abutting). The ordinance will still keep the abutting landowner to have to pay for sidewalks if they are the person or their contractor has damaged the sidewalks. Public Bob Dickinson, 19 Birch Road - support the change to the sidewalk ordinance as proposed. This change needs to be made to make sidewalks more acceptable to homeowners. This will create safety to walkers and pedestrians. Providing sidewalks will subside concerns. Roy Normen, Homestead Drive, very please to see progress being made after 20 years. The only time abutter would be responsible for damages to sidewalk would be if the abutter is responsible for the damage. The other issue is the liability for the sidewalk as a homeowner. do not want to be liable for pedestrians. Skip Bourke, 91 Mariol Drive, in favor of this ordinance changes and will think it will make safer for pedestrians. Ken Sek, 285 Griffin Road - also member of SWW& WW - in favor of ordinance changes. Live in development with sidewalks and general practice is that people get out there and shovel their sidewalks. People get used to it when they hae the sidewalks. Straw Poll those in favor of changes to the ordinance - 5 those in opposition to changes of the ordinance -0 closed 7:24 p.m.

© 2003-2025 Swagit Productions, LLC