GENERAL37420 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

.y IBiA 96-90, 96-91 Attwooll, who inspected Appellants' horse on Febzuary 23, 1995, oon- cluded that the cracks observed in the exterior a~ interior walls were wider and more pronounced in the eastern two-story portion of the house than in the western one-story portion, where the cracks were fmn hairline to less than one-eighth of an inch wide. (Letter to Appellants, dated March 16, 1995, at 1-2.) He attributed the narrow clacking generally in the western one-story portion of the house to the nozmal aging process of an old adobe horse, but the severe crar~i ~ genesallY in the eastern two- story portico of the horse, which was "[r]elatively recestt [atrll + + + possibly ongoing," to a "settlem~t incident." Ili. at 3. He pointed out that the fxest¢iess of score of the cracks was "indicated by the separation of reoa~tly painted surfao~." Id. Attwooll then proceeded to assess the possibility that this exten- sive cracking was caused by water- leaking; form the roof; the rotting mots attached to the sturtgs of two large nearby octtonwood trees, fluctuations in the high water table, pocr drainage arYxu~d the horse, deterioration of walls above the foundati.~, or, finally, subsidence extending mrtheast fran BRI's First North Main misurx~. (Letter to Appellants, dated March 16, 1995, at 4-6.) He ruled cut each of the possible explanations other than mine subsidence. irostly because none explained the extent or recent nature of the dartage to the eastern two-story portion of the balsa. Id. While he believers that the evidence did not categorically point to a specific cause for the damage, catsideting the lack of other possible r~,~ and the fact that damage had been occurring since the minirz3 took pace, Attwoo]1 can- cluded that "surface nuver?nte due to coal mine subsidence are a likely reas~ far the danage." Id.. at 7. Reins, who inspected the house on April 24, 1995, agreed with ., Attwooll that the damage was "fairly reoertt" affi mostly on the eastern two-story portion of the house. (Letter to ~ tta.,r~, dated May 23, 1995, at 2.) He also noted that the damage was likely due to a rotatiAn of the east and south walls do~a~vran3 and away fran the rest of the ha~se, since the as~sistent (rather than randaN orientation and pattern of the damage supported that conclusion. ~. at 4; Mamrarrhan to Appellants, dated Jtu~e 30, 1995, at 3. While, like Fhirlletotl, he had not been able to inspect the faar3atica~ underlying this portico of the house, Reins nevesthelesa stated: TtLe locations, geometry, and orientatim of the dis- trQSS within haiae stmrxJly suggest that the east and south walls are rotating away fmn the rest of the structural fram- ing. It appears that the fwndation systacs beneath these two walls have subsided. The magnitude of the subsidence does not appear to be particularly substantial. However, even a fairly subtle tmvacettt of the foundation would be magnified in the noven~sts and rotations of the fra<tting affi bearin7 walls above. If the residence was a conventional, woo3-fr~ned horse, these relatively small nov~nients might have been easily acarn- nodated without s;~ ;ficant distress. However, adobe ca~struc- tion is inherently incapable of resisting or aeccsmedating such ~. ... 151 IBSJ1 305