View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Guest
|
Posted: Sat, Sep 24 2011, 12:55 pm EDT Post subject: Re: The giant tree is still across the sidewalk on main street? |
|
|
Guest wrote: | Grant from the state paid for the work not local money and Cranbury is more than the historic district when we talk about the character of the town.
.
Guest wrote: | John t wrote: | I live in the estates and just did the measuement that the public works boss described and realize that the trees in my front yard are not in the right of way, that means that I'm responsible for the tree? How is that possible if I live on a township rd? That would mean trees in Evans ,wynnewood,and the estates don't benefit from the tree service either . So why would we maintain trees on county roads if residents on township roads don't benefit either. |
If you live in the estates and you decide to cut down the trees in your front yard, it doesn't affect the character of the town. The same is not true in the historic district.
Besides, didn't the estates just get new sidewalks and the street repaved? Who do you think paid for that? Not everyone received the same benefit but I didn't hear the estates residents complaining that that was unfair. |
|
I agree, there is more than just the historic district to make Cranbury, Cranbury. But with all due respect, I am not the poster, but the first thing I think of is the historic district when I think of Cranbury being Cranbury. Memorial Day Parade, Fireworks, Cranbury Day, restaurants all center on the historic district. While I live in Shadow Oaks and the people make up Cranbury's character, I don't think that my development or others like the Estates as standing out as what people think of when they think Cranbury as a town. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
Posted: Sat, Sep 24 2011, 12:56 pm EDT Post subject: Re: The giant tree is still across the sidewalk on main street? |
|
|
[quote="Guest"]Nice try main street home owner.
Interesting, a snarky comment with no substance. Looks to me as an admission of defeat. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
Posted: Sat, Sep 24 2011, 1:36 pm EDT Post subject: Re: The giant tree is still across the sidewalk on main street? |
|
|
Nice try main street home owner
Guest wrote: | Guest wrote: | Nice try main street home owner.
Guest wrote: | Let's also keep in mind where essentially talking Main St. Most Main St. residents lived there prior 2006 when the town decided to tell them how their houses had to be maintained. They woke up one day after a TC meeting to find that essentially they now lived in a very restrictive home owners association.
Before 2006, the town would provide an advisory service saying this is what you should or could do to keep things historic. However, the owners were not forced to do anything.
This created a burden by not only seeking approvals, but forcing people people to spend thousands of dollars more to maintain their home or do any repairs/additions. Need new windows in other areas of town you can get any type you choose, in town you are forced to buy certain ones that are more expensive as they have to be wood. Want to put up a fence, they will dictate what it looks like. Want to replace a roof, better hope it's not slate or that $5k roofing job just became $50k.
From where I stand I like the historic district and the look of the homes. However, I don't have to deal with the cost or hassel I simply get to walk or drive through town. So if it means maintaining a few trees while someone spends a lot more to keep the home looking historic I am fine in sharing in this cost because I benefit from having this area look the way it does. Just like I benefit from a park. |
|
I actually live on Washington Drive and have been here for 20 years. I just hear on this board and in converstation how restrictive it is. I also jog on Main St and love the fall with the leaves turning and the NE feel of the town. So I don't want to see the trees covering Main St. go away because some home owner decides they don't want a tree or gets fed up. |
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
Posted: Sat, Sep 24 2011, 2:42 pm EDT Post subject: Re: The giant tree is still across the sidewalk on main street? |
|
|
Guest wrote: | Nice try main street home owner
Guest wrote: | Guest wrote: | Nice try main street home owner.
Guest wrote: | Let's also keep in mind where essentially talking Main St. Most Main St. residents lived there prior 2006 when the town decided to tell them how their houses had to be maintained. They woke up one day after a TC meeting to find that essentially they now lived in a very restrictive home owners association.
Before 2006, the town would provide an advisory service saying this is what you should or could do to keep things historic. However, the owners were not forced to do anything.
This created a burden by not only seeking approvals, but forcing people people to spend thousands of dollars more to maintain their home or do any repairs/additions. Need new windows in other areas of town you can get any type you choose, in town you are forced to buy certain ones that are more expensive as they have to be wood. Want to put up a fence, they will dictate what it looks like. Want to replace a roof, better hope it's not slate or that $5k roofing job just became $50k.
From where I stand I like the historic district and the look of the homes. However, I don't have to deal with the cost or hassel I simply get to walk or drive through town. So if it means maintaining a few trees while someone spends a lot more to keep the home looking historic I am fine in sharing in this cost because I benefit from having this area look the way it does. Just like I benefit from a park. |
|
I actually live on Washington Drive and have been here for 20 years. I just hear on this board and in converstation how restrictive it is. I also jog on Main St and love the fall with the leaves turning and the NE feel of the town. So I don't want to see the trees covering Main St. go away because some home owner decides they don't want a tree or gets fed up. |
|
okay you got me. I must be mistaken where I live. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
guest2 Guest
|
Posted: Tue, Sep 27 2011, 11:13 am EDT Post subject: Re: The giant tree is still across the sidewalk on main street? |
|
|
I live in the historical main street district. I have 3 of the trees between the curb and sidewalk. I know the twp planted them since because I bought the house from family and it has always been in my family. Getting to the point.. I fully intend to cut all three down and will not permit any others to be planted in that area if I am going to maintain them. I know of another homeowner that has 4 of these trees and they will be removed in the coming years also. If you want to keep it as a tree city you will have to maintain the trees or the homeowners will take them down when they need to be and most likely not plant them back.
I dont want the trees!
I propose if you want the homeowners to be responsible lets do this. First send a notice to the people impacted and if they want the trees they sign and send it back. If they dont lets get who doesnt want them. Then we can get a large quote from Save-A-Tree or whoever and have them removed at the property owners expenses. If we do this the property owner will get the best possible price. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
Posted: Tue, Sep 27 2011, 11:48 am EDT Post subject: Re: The giant tree is still across the sidewalk on main street? |
|
|
Some people seem to be suggesting that if the Township doesn't maintain the trees the homeowners have the right to remove them. I'm curious if that's really the law in NJ. Where I used to live street trees were like sidewalks and other public assets on private property easements in that the homeowners had an obligation to maintain them even if the city or county planted or required them. That's common in many states and cities. In NYC if a street tree in front of a property dies, even of natural causes or no fault to the property owner, like a car hitting it, the property owner has to replace it at their expense. I'm not sure about NJ law but I wouldn't be surprised if it is similar and the property owners have an obligation to maintain the trees whether they want them or not. Welcome to home ownership, there are all kinds of obligations. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
guest2 Guest
|
Posted: Tue, Sep 27 2011, 12:40 pm EDT Post subject: Re: The giant tree is still across the sidewalk on main street? |
|
|
I am cutting them down..plant another I will cut that one down too..its what I do. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
Posted: Tue, Sep 27 2011, 12:58 pm EDT Post subject: Re: The giant tree is still across the sidewalk on main street? |
|
|
Guest wrote: | Some people seem to be suggesting that if the Township doesn't maintain the trees the homeowners have the right to remove them. I'm curious if that's really the law in NJ. Where I used to live street trees were like sidewalks and other public assets on private property easements in that the homeowners had an obligation to maintain them even if the city or county planted or required them. That's common in many states and cities. In NYC if a street tree in front of a property dies, even of natural causes or no fault to the property owner, like a car hitting it, the property owner has to replace it at their expense. I'm not sure about NJ law but I wouldn't be surprised if it is similar and the property owners have an obligation to maintain the trees whether they want them or not. Welcome to home ownership, there are all kinds of obligations. |
A few years ago the TC contemplated a tree ordinance that would have prohibited the removing of certain trees. I don't believe it was ever voted upon. Does anyone here have a better memory of this? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
Posted: Tue, Sep 27 2011, 2:34 pm EDT Post subject: Re: The giant tree is still across the sidewalk on main street? |
|
|
There is no ordinance as such. Further, I think the town would have a hard time arguing that they can prohibit you from cutting down a tree and then saying they have no responsibility. They say the tree is a county tree so how can they then prohibit you from removing it if the county doesn't care. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
Posted: Tue, Sep 27 2011, 3:05 pm EDT Post subject: Re: The giant tree is still across the sidewalk on main street? |
|
|
Guest wrote: | There is no ordinance as such. Further, I think the town would have a hard time arguing that they can prohibit you from cutting down a tree and then saying they have no responsibility. They say the tree is a county tree so how can they then prohibit you from removing it if the county doesn't care. |
Government can do what ever it wants |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
Posted: Tue, Sep 27 2011, 3:06 pm EDT Post subject: Re: The giant tree is still across the sidewalk on main street? |
|
|
Guest wrote: | ... I think the town would have a hard time arguing that they can prohibit you from cutting down a tree and then saying they have no responsibility... |
I have no idea what the law is here but this sentence is not true. It's is legal for an applicable governing body to restrict uses on private land inclusive of requiring maintenance of street trees or preventing their removal even if the governing body does not pay for or contribute to the maintenance of them. That's not unusual and has been held up on appeal. Whether this particular township or county has such a law I don't know. If they don't have at it. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
Posted: Tue, Sep 27 2011, 6:41 pm EDT Post subject: Re: The giant tree is still across the sidewalk on main street? |
|
|
Guest wrote: | Guest wrote: | ... I think the town would have a hard time arguing that they can prohibit you from cutting down a tree and then saying they have no responsibility... |
I have no idea what the law is here but this sentence is not true. It's is legal for an applicable governing body to restrict uses on private land inclusive of requiring maintenance of street trees or preventing their removal even if the governing body does not pay for or contribute to the maintenance of them. That's not unusual and has been held up on appeal. Whether this particular township or county has such a law I don't know. If they don't have at it. |
Government can do whatever it wants |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
Posted: Tue, Sep 27 2011, 7:22 pm EDT Post subject: Re: The giant tree is still across the sidewalk on main street? |
|
|
Guest wrote: | Guest wrote: | ... I think the town would have a hard time arguing that they can prohibit you from cutting down a tree and then saying they have no responsibility... |
I have no idea what the law is here but this sentence is not true. It's is legal for an applicable governing body to restrict uses on private land inclusive of requiring maintenance of street trees or preventing their removal even if the governing body does not pay for or contribute to the maintenance of them. That's not unusual and has been held up on appeal. Whether this particular township or county has such a law I don't know. If they don't have at it. |
The statement above does not say it is illegal for the town to do it. It says it would be hard for the town to argue. Of course, they can do whatever they want, but they answer to the voters who would clearly see a contradiction here at least those impacted by the decision would. The town wants no responsibility for the trees, yet has no issue telling a homeowner they have to keep them and the expense because some people who have no monetary interest or any risk enjoy the view.
Of course, that is how HPC started as well. The governing body decided that they wanted Main St to look a certain way, did not trust the homeowners to keep it that way despite all the history of doing so, and as a result HPC a body of a few individuals control all the construction and style in the historic district. Even though only two live in the district and one of the two has a home that clearly is no longer historic with a sunroom. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
Posted: Tue, Sep 27 2011, 7:39 pm EDT Post subject: Re: The giant tree is still across the sidewalk on main street? |
|
|
Guest wrote: | Guest wrote: | Guest wrote: | ... I think the town would have a hard time arguing that they can prohibit you from cutting down a tree and then saying they have no responsibility... |
I have no idea what the law is here but this sentence is not true. It's is legal for an applicable governing body to restrict uses on private land inclusive of requiring maintenance of street trees or preventing their removal even if the governing body does not pay for or contribute to the maintenance of them. That's not unusual and has been held up on appeal. Whether this particular township or county has such a law I don't know. If they don't have at it. |
The statement above does not say it is illegal for the town to do it. It says it would be hard for the town to argue. Of course, they can do whatever they want, but they answer to the voters who would clearly see a contradiction here at least those impacted by the decision would. The town wants no responsibility for the trees, yet has no issue telling a homeowner they have to keep them and the expense because some people who have no monetary interest or any risk enjoy the view.
Of course, that is how HPC started as well. The governing body decided that they wanted Main St to look a certain way, did not trust the homeowners to keep it that way despite all the history of doing so, and as a result HPC a body of a few individuals control all the construction and style in the historic district. Even though only two live in the district and one of the two has a home that clearly is no longer historic with a sunroom. |
Funny I thought this thread was about trees? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
Posted: Sun, Oct 2 2011, 11:31 pm EDT Post subject: Re: The giant tree is still across the sidewalk on main street? |
|
|
Conflict
Jay Taylor wrote: | I saw this thread and want to add the facts as the responsible person for public works. If you have any questions or concerns please email me at jtaylor@cranbury-nj.com.
On Monday night the tree issue was raised and a vote of 3-2 was taken to remove the tree. The vote was Win, Dave and I for and Dan and Glenn opposed.
The issue is that until the end of last year (going back to when I was born here and from longer time residents even before) the town always took responsibility for removing, planting and maintaining trees that were defined as street trees regardless of whether the town or county owned the right of way. The logic was all due to safety and if a limb or tree fell they did not want any child harmed. At the end of this year the decision was to place the county trees at the county level and the town trees on the town level. The last tree on a county road to be removed by the town was in late 2008. No trees had to be removed that met the criteria in 2009 and I don't recall any in 2010, but I could be wrong.
A street tree is defined as a tree that is I believe 30' from the center line of the road (it may be 15') so I need to confirm. Regardless, the Main St tree which generated the discussion met the criteria.
The problem is that the town and county differ in their views that were not made clear to us when we made a decision to defer responsibility.
The town takes responsibility for maintaining the trees on town right of ways, planting and removing them. We contract with an outside vendor for this service.
Conversly, the county has a strict view that they only remove trees that fall on their roads. They do not maintain, plant or remove trees otherwise.
From a tax perspective there is no county tax spent on removing and maintaining street trees unless they meet the strict definition. The town does have money in the budget to do the maintaince and removal and for this year it is less as we based it on twp only trees. Though as another poster stated we do have money to rectify this specific situation.
The question at the TC meeting and I forget the wording on the resolution, was essentially whether to take care of this tree as we would the other twp trees as in the past or to adhere to current policy. Also, we decided to have the shade tree commission review and make a recommendation for a policy going forward.
I voted yes to follow prior practice and here is why. There are two distinct differences in policy. The homeowner on a county road pays a tax to the town that removes the tree and maintains the tree for homeowners who have street trees on town roads. The homeowner on a town road pays the same tax and receives the service.
Though both pay the same county tax, there is no money from that county tax allocated to maintain, remove or plant trees.
A county rd resident under the current policy pays more if they have a street tree fall. They pay for the removal of a twp tree on a neighbor's property, but they then pay a private service to remove a tree on their own street because on their land it is a county and not a town right of way. Thus, there is a difference in value in services received by the homeowner when paying taxes to the town. They are paying for services that will never be made available to them from the county or town.
While we discuss a policy change I felt it was best to adhere to the old policy that had been in place for as long as I could determine and not have this resident pay the cost of removing the tree. |
|
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
Posted: Mon, Oct 3 2011, 8:01 am EDT Post subject: Re: The giant tree is still across the sidewalk on main street? |
|
|
Not sure, I understand the worth of this other than being a troll and trying to start the thread up again. It was not his tree and if you are saying it's because he lives on Main St., then the only one who likely could have voted by that standard which is fairly strict is the Mayor since all others have homes impacted. Also, by the same standard he and all others except Mr. Mulligan should have removed themselves from the sidewalk discussion since they all have sidewalks. Yet, he was the only one who voted No and all the others voted yes on that issue which will cost us a lot more money.
At least he came here and explained the vote and while I disagree with taking the tree away I understand the logic especially after speaking with him. The TC asked the Shade Tree commission to make a decision on policy going forward which should have been done before the change made this year. Plus, being at the meeting I recall him saying he was fine if the town didn't take care of any trees if they wanted to make that decision that night which the others on the TC did not. Also, unlike the sidewalk vote, he was not alone in his vote as the majority supported the tree being removed. However, he was the only one to come here and try and explain what happened that night and take accountability.
So yes, let's try and raise issues with the only people who actually try and put information on this forum and stop the runmors. So they'll stop and this forum really degrades. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|