View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Guest
|
Posted: Thu, Aug 19 2010, 7:41 am EDT Post subject: Re: Why was the Sweetwater discussion locked? |
|
|
Guest wrote: | Guest wrote: |
Have you seen the plans or just going on this board? There are a number of large houses on Main St. From the plans I can't see how it will be out of character. It's not like a Toll Brothers home was just plopped down. |
Yes I have seen the plans and I can't believe that you think it fits in, not only size wise but also historically. Do you even know what you are looking at? The design elements are all wrong for our town, and it is like a Toll brothers house. Put it over on Liedtke Drive with those other gigantic rambling estates.
Why didn't these people buy a bigger piece of land if they wanted a grand manor. They could have bought the Cheney or Haggerty property. |
Clearly you have not seen the plans or you have not seen a Toll Brothers home. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
Posted: Fri, Aug 20 2010, 10:59 am EDT Post subject: Re: Why was the Sweetwater discussion locked? |
|
|
What about the 3 car attached garage? How many of those exist on Main Street or within the historic village? I belive the answer is 0. I would also argue that this will be the largest home in the historic disctrict by a fair margin.
Anyone interested in how this came to be should get themselves a copy of the HPAC minutes from these meetings. The HPAC were "excited" to see a house filling in this space on Main. So excited, in fact, that although they originally objected to the size and the 3 car garage and a few other elements, they later (in the same meeting) decided that these elements were acceptable and that the 3 car attached garage was OK because it was in the "back" of the property.
The back of the property is in the FRONT of mine (also in the historic district)!! Furthermore, in the BACK of my property I was made to spend 3x more to make a SHED (yes, a shed) in order to comply with historic character. Furthermore, I have spent about $25K more over the past few years making my home comply with these standards (as have my neighbors- no solid fence, etc.). If it is now determined that being in the "back" has lower standards then on Main, who is going to compensate us in the back for the incremental monies that we have all spent complying when we should not have had to since we are in the "back?"
Key questions are:
Why is this application receiving special considerations?
I belive the answer is that certain board members are "excited" about the idea of a house, the applicants are taking a my way or no way approach, and consequesntly, they are receiving special privelages and not being made to meet their burden of proof on the resulting impacts of this project.
I don't think there are and bad guys here, but I definately think that as a town, we need to have consistent rules and throrough processes to make sure that the rights and liberties of some are not compromised for those of others just to meet the agenda of the day. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
Posted: Fri, Aug 20 2010, 1:55 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Why was the Sweetwater discussion locked? |
|
|
There are at least four homes I can think of with barns or separate garages in the back that can and do fit 3 cars or more. So yes there are homes with 3 car garages on Main St.
However, that said I think HPAC does need to go away and go back to the original intent which is advisory only. Then let the zoning ordinances rule so there are consistent applications across town. That is unless the town does want to compensate those forced to do extra like slate roofs. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
Posted: Fri, Aug 20 2010, 8:28 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Why was the Sweetwater discussion locked? |
|
|
Guest wrote: | There are at least four homes I can think of with barns or separate garages in the back that can and do fit 3 cars or more. So yes there are homes with 3 car garages on Main St.
However, that said I think HPAC does need to go away and go back to the original intent which is advisory only. Then let the zoning ordinances rule so there are consistent applications across town. That is unless the town does want to compensate those forced to do extra like slate roofs. |
HPAC did ask them to make the garage a separate building which they declined to do. That is just one prime example of what would help the house be more consistent with town. But, I certainly would not be happy looking at it every day from my front porch if I lived on the other side of the street. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
Posted: Fri, Aug 20 2010, 8:34 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Why was the Sweetwater discussion locked? |
|
|
Me personally, I'd rather have a 3 car garage incorporated in the house and look at that then a separate building as you know the home is likely to be maintained as opposed to a separate building that can turn to junk. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
Posted: Fri, Aug 20 2010, 8:37 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Sweetwater Planning Board discussion ? |
|
|
Does anyone know why the Sweetwater application was not discussed by the Planning board last night? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
Posted: Fri, Aug 20 2010, 8:43 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Why was the Sweetwater discussion locked? |
|
|
Guest wrote: | Me personally, I'd rather have a 3 car garage incorporated in the house and look at that then a separate building as you know the home is likely to be maintained as opposed to a separate building that can turn to junk. |
I'd like to know where you live and if there garages around you that are pieces of junk? You obviously don't understand the concepts of historic district or historic preservation. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
Posted: Fri, Aug 20 2010, 9:26 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Why was the Sweetwater discussion locked? |
|
|
Guest wrote: | There are at least four homes I can think of with barns or separate garages in the back that can and do fit 3 cars or more. So yes there are homes with 3 car garages on Main St.
However, that said I think HPAC does need to go away and go back to the original intent which is advisory only. Then let the zoning ordinances rule so there are consistent applications across town. That is unless the town does want to compensate those forced to do extra like slate roofs. |
I'm not the OP but reading this topic they clearly specified "attached" so your examples aren't applicable. Detached garages that look like converted barns are more in character with the historic idstrict that a 3-car attached garage.
I don't live in the historic district and don't personally have a dog in this fight. But honestly I think the poster who lives on Maplewood has some fair points. If it is true that the HPAC originally objected to the garage but then said it was okay "because it was in the back" that is unfairly biasing Main Street at the expense of Maplewood. And if they are allowing the applicant to get away with things they forced other residents to spend extra money to comply with, that is not only unfair but I would argue should be actionable and is in any event highly irresponsible of the HPAC members. Again, I repeatedly said "if" because I have no first-hand knowledge of these proceedings. I am only reacting to what I read here.
While I hate all the lawsuits in this country and lack of responsibility, if the HPAC really is exercising its power arbitrarily or inconsistently, I am actually glad to hear someone has the personal responses to take up the fight against that. I can't see why they shouldn't be forced to treat this project consistently with how they have treated all others. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
Posted: Fri, Aug 20 2010, 10:38 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Why was the Sweetwater discussion locked? |
|
|
Guest wrote: | Guest wrote: | Me personally, I'd rather have a 3 car garage incorporated in the house and look at that then a separate building as you know the home is likely to be maintained as opposed to a separate building that can turn to junk. |
I'd like to know where you live and if there garages around you that are pieces of junk? You obviously don't understand the concepts of historic district or historic preservation. |
Historic preservation and being in the district does not mean people maintain buildings. It does mean they have more stringent rules when they want to do work on the home to keep it as it is. Drive around the area and look in back of homes. You can see homes that are nice and then a building behind that needs work and overgrown.
There is no code stating that the condition and upkeep has to be maintained. You clearly don't know the codes if you think maintaining is required by simply being in the district. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
Posted: Sat, Aug 21 2010, 12:16 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Why was the Sweetwater discussion locked? |
|
|
About maintenance- yes, from firsthand experience, a historic building (home, or garage, whether attached or detached) requires more maintenance. Do the older ones look like "junk?" I believe not and happen to like them, which is why I myself live in a historic home within a historic tow in NJ. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, I guess.
I have no personal opinion about the beauty (better or worse) of the proposed house and see the value of a home or homes being built on these lot(s) of the "old PNC lot" in your town.
About the "rules" that are used for approval on historic boards and for historic preservation. From my own personal experiences, the rules are not hard and fast. There are, however, some factors and design elements used to determine whether or not something is within the historic "character." These include scale, configuration, and size. I believe that fences of less that 50% transparency and ATTACHED garages, for example, are not within the "character" of Main street, but that is just my memory/opinion and I am not on the Cranbury HPAC so this opinion is just that. If you compare the raw size of this proposed home to those in its vicinity, I believe that its degree of size differential ranges from ~2-5x the size of those homes across the street, next to, and behind it (off of the residential half of the lot) and maybe ~1-2X the size of the largest homes in Cranbury's village.
I only state this fact because the size element seems to bother some residents in the village. Whether you agree or disagree with them, it is also true that the material impact of the homes size has seemed to have an evolving impact on the extent to which the current configuration of vehicular access to the commercial lot "can" or will be maintained. This issue seems to be upsetting another, more organized and apparently adequately represented group of residents from the back streets that understandably don't want that to become a back alley to commercial businesses. Since the business usage or the building that this lot is accessory to is clearly changing, it seems to me that they have a great case that several, unaddressed variances are needed.
Unfortunately, while the idea of a house here in the center of Main street is a benefit in theory, both the previously presented and currently pulled plans would appear to detract from the quality of the surrounding areas as voiced by these various residents. I truly hope that proper and legitimate burden of proof was or will be established because a mere traffic count does not properly address these.
At the end of the day, these individual boards and their professional representation that can suggest, approve or disapprove (and do the best they can with the information they have). Applicants have a great deal of power, as they should, over what the plans look like, so they decide (with their hired help) what the plans look like. With proper consideration for these issues, this could be a very long process. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
Posted: Sat, Aug 21 2010, 1:48 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Why was the Sweetwater discussion locked? |
|
|
I am not saying that because they are older they look like junk. I am saying many homeowners do not mow around them, paint them or repair them as needed because they are treated differently then the actual home itself. Is that every home, no of course not just like not every historic home is maintained to the same level. However, most people keep the home itself in good condition and clean even those where they might not maintain the out building.
As per the other poster, I went and read the notes on this property. Here is what I found.
Fence- It says semi-solid-The proposed fence will be painted cement wood material. The semi-solid portion will approximately come to top of window sills on the house.
http://cranburytownship.org/hpc_agendas/2010/hpc_minutes04-06-10.pdf
Size- Mr. Ford (architecht) explained that the proposed house is not as long as the existing bank building to the south and approximately the same length as the house to the north.
http://cranburytownship.org/hpc_agendas/2010/hpc_minutes02-16-10.pdf
On page 2 is a discussion of the garage- too long to paste. I don't see a request by HPAC members to have a detached garage. I see a request from a resident and advice from HPAC on ways the homeowner may want to change the look.
http://cranburytownship.org/hpc_agendas/2010/hpc_minutes02-16-10.pdf
I can only go on what I read in the notes so I can't comment on what was said at the meeting. On the fence it says semi-solid I am not sure what the percentage is solid. We do have board on board fences in the district as well as some picket style fences which are considered semi-solid. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
Posted: Sat, Aug 21 2010, 3:31 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Why was the Sweetwater discussion locked? |
|
|
Guest wrote: | About maintenance- yes, from firsthand experience, a historic building (home, or garage, whether attached or detached) requires more maintenance. Do the older ones look like "junk?" I believe not and happen to like them, which is why I myself live in a historic home within a historic tow in NJ. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, I guess.
Etc.....
|
Thank you so much for your illuminating post and for your professional insight into our Historic Main Street dilemma. It would be nice to have you on one of our boards. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
Posted: Sat, Aug 21 2010, 5:02 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Why was the Sweetwater discussion locked? |
|
|
Guest wrote: | I am not saying that because they are older they look like junk. I am saying many homeowners do not mow around them, paint them or repair them as needed because they are treated differently then the actual home itself. |
Are we driving around the same town? Where are these run down, unmowed properties? I think you are continuing this argument just to argue. I also suggest that you go back and read the HPAC minutes. The first sentence says "conceptual house plan" for "conceptual discussion," meaning it can be changed. To your first point, the original proposed fence was 8ft tall to protect the privacy of the hot-tub on the second story deck. (2) the length of the house is 160ft, as big as the bank, BUT then add an attached three car garage and you have a gigantic mass of house. (3) the neighbor to the north requested that the garage be detached. HPAC did say "the brick gabled end is unusual as well as an attached garage, and this is not something that would have been done. It was typical to have modest homes located along Main St." The owners also want solar collector panels on the roof, a two story palladian window in the stairwell, big decorative panels under the front windows, and Anderson Art Deco windows. The architect keeps saying they will cover everything up with landscaping.
Don't just cherry-pick your quotes to support your faulty thinking, go over and look at the plans and don't believe everything you read. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
Posted: Sat, Aug 21 2010, 5:19 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Why was the Sweetwater discussion locked? |
|
|
One more critique of the house, in a five bay colonial (five windows across the top), the front door traditionally is centered. So, why did the architect choose to put it off to the side? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
Posted: Mon, Aug 23 2010, 1:33 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Why was the Sweetwater discussion locked? |
|
|
Guest wrote: | Guest wrote: | Guest wrote: |
Have you seen the plans or just going on this board? There are a number of large houses on Main St. From the plans I can't see how it will be out of character. It's not like a Toll Brothers home was just plopped down. |
Yes I have seen the plans and I can't believe that you think it fits in, not only size wise but also historically. Do you even know what you are looking at? The design elements are all wrong for our town, and it is like a Toll brothers house. Put it over on Liedtke Drive with those other gigantic rambling estates.
Why didn't these people buy a bigger piece of land if they wanted a grand manor. They could have bought the Cheney or Haggerty property. |
Now your personal bias is really shining through. Many people like the Liedtke Drive houses and I could point you to at least a few homes on Main Street that look similar and are quite large. One of the things that makes Main Street authentic is the architectual styles, sizes, period are all over the board. You may have your own personal idea of what that is but I for one am glad to no one person or group of like-minded people get to dictate what everything should look like on Main. |
Hallelujah, Sister. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
Posted: Tue, Aug 24 2010, 9:19 pm EDT Post subject: Re: Why was the Sweetwater discussion locked? |
|
|
I agree as well. So long as this size does not infringe on the town or neighbors in any way, I think that the size alone is not an issue. I like the Liedke houses. I also trust HPAC to make sure the elements are in keeping, even if I am mad that I paid $5K for a shed in the very back of my lot when a 3 car garage is allowed in the back of this one. I can get over all of that because it will look great. It will be a clear standout in width, height and depth, but will look great all the same. I know HPAC did what they could.
Anyway, why I wrote on the size was not in judgment of the historic nature of the proposed new home on the PNC lot. Why I wrote is because many residents that live on these backstreets or walk on them or have children that cross them to the park are against the house size simply because it precludes maintaining current, or even close to current, vehicular access on Main street and thereby increases the commercial traffic "load" or burden to the 1/2 sized back street, which is in a residential zone and by all common sense cannot handle this flow.
If logic prevails, one of two things will happen:
1) Since that HPAC approval happened under the pretense that it did not preclude Main access, because the application requires variances to be seen in front of the zoning board, and because proper elements of the application’s impact have not been properly represented, the application and all previous approvals should be dismissed and the application begun anew.
2) New plans that don't (as current plans do) CONCURRENTLY INCREASE back street commercial traffic burden AND INCREASE the very business utility of the building with a new business office (currently Sweetwater Constr) now with new lobby/main entrance in back AND a NEW retail (bike shop now, later?) proposed on Main. (current traffic is irrelevant to this legally, by the way).
Otherwise, we will all (taxpayers, applicants and objectors) be spending lots of time and money appealing bad decisions. This will be unfair to all involved. I worry that my/our proclamations are misconstrued as evidence of weakness or as ploys. Let me be clear- we believe that the law protects our rights to that stated here. We are fully funded, prepared and intend to pursue. We have made our request simple and fair to avoid confusion and eliminate the need for trade-offs or compromises.
No ploy, just a plea for common sense and good decisions. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|