Why was the Sweetwater discussion locked?

[Guest]

[Guest]

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.

[Guest]

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.

[Guest]

[Guest]

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.

[Guest]

Does anyone know why the Sweetwater application was not discussed by the Planning board last night?

[Guest]

[Guest]

[Guest]

[Guest]

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.

[Guest]

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.

[Guest]

[Guest]

[Guest]

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?

[Guest]

[Guest]

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.