HPC Hypocrisy

[anon-no99]

Just read the latest Historical Preservation Committee meeting minutes, and yeah, sure, let’s just tear down a 100+year old barn with old peg joinery on a prominent Main St. property in our National Historic District. No wait, let’s tear down two historic barns on the same property because they aren’t what the owners want, the barns don’t work for them and their lifestyle, and the owners have a ton of money so they can basically do whatever they want. Once again HPC caves in to wealthy people and doesn’t do what they are entrusted to do, like historic preservation. Maybe in the not so distant future people will thank them for helping the town look a lot more like Hightstown, or better yet, New Brunswick, or maybe after they and the Beautification Committee with their absurd bump-outs and gaslights are finished - Disneyworld!

[anon-0493]

[anon-005o]

[rememberingthepast-617n]

It was not that long ago that the Cranbury Historical Society, HPC and the Township Committee were appalled at plans to raze the Updike Barn on Cranbury Neck Road. Much money was was spent to dismantle that barn, store it, and then rebuild it in our new Barn Park.

Do those groups have anything to say about the current Plan to raze TWO barns on North Main. Clearly, HPC does not care, and looking around Town, HPC has not cared about much in the past 10 years. We are quickly losing the character of this Town and trading it for more vinyl, and a more generic look. This WILL impact your property values as quality brings better value. Take a look at other Towns that do a great job at Historic Preservation. Cranbury was once like them, indeed, we were the model. Not so much any more.

So, whats the remedy? It all comes back to the Township Committee, and who they appoint to HPC, and what the TC does to lead the Town.

TC, the ball is in your court, as is the fate of Cranbury's Historic Fabric.

Will you act?

PS-I anticipate the comments-go to a meeting and complain. Been there, done that. Lets be realistic: by the time there is a public meeting, the decisions have been made-thats just a fact. Nevetheless, I am hoping the members of our TC read this post and decide that a new approach is needed. They can start by saving these barns from someone who bought the property with the barns included, then move to the downtown (full of vacancies and places for sale), then move to the Hagerty Tract (where they can ask do we really need all that housing and do we really need a new retail shopping center on North Main??)

[anon-sp10]

The Updike barn cost a couple hundred thousand when all was said and done. If the barns are unsafe and would cost the same amount how can you force that on a home owner? I don't see any lack of historical detail.

In terms of downtown Claire's retired. The TC can't stop that just like they couldn't stop the hardware store. Two new businesses opened Molto bene and Chinese, a new yoga studio came in and a framing shop along with a soon to open comic book store. I don't see the issue. The same with David Wells. These places aren't vacant and boarded up.

Hagerty is zoned for building. We can either have a say in how it looks or a couple of builders can come in and build a mishmash of town homes and retail. I'd rather have the say so the design looks nice and unlike other situations the BOE can be involved now.

I don't see your issue at all.

[anon-49q0]

What would our forefathers think of "barn park"?

What would you think if a hundred years from now you came back to find Cranbury spending millions of dollars to create a collection of stand alone garages?

Come to think of it, this sounds a little like the "book museum"!

[anon-0493]

It's pretty obvious that Anon-sp10 and Anon 49q0 do not understand Historic Preservation at all or what it means to our town. The owners of the barns absolutely have the money to preserve them, they just don't want to. Instead they are planning to build a multi-million dollar complex on their property, a huge addition to the historic house and two new house/barns. Read the HPC minutes.
rememberingthepast is right. By the time there's a public meeting, decisions have already been made. The town ought to be pretty nervous about the Haggerty/Cheney development.

[anon-5651]

[anon-np42]

[anon-0493]

Maybe you don't get it. This is not Williamsburg (which is a recreation anyway). You need to balance cost vs project and safety. HPC forces people to spend thousands more on roofs because they want to protect the few homes whose owners were not able to reroof before HPC became an authority instead of advisory. If you want people to live in these homes and take care of them you need a balance.

Personally, I value the village, but I can't see making someone spend thousands or hundreds of thousands more than necessary. It's always great to complain when it is someone else's money.[/quote]


Sorry, YOU are the one that doesn't get it, and why in the context of more important things, are you complaining about a roof. HPC has not been hawkish enough in the last few years. You are only a caretaker of your home to be passed down to generations to come. If you keep tearing away the authenticity of them and putting cheap stuff on them they will become cheap and irrelevant.

[anon-0493]

[anon-0493]

[anon-5651]

[anon-sp0n]

[anon-sp0n]

[anon-sp0n]

And here's the 2014 minutes regarding the same property. I still see no reference to "multi-million dollar compound." Please cite exactly where this was in the minutes as you stated above in chastising people to "keep up" by reading them in answering where you had gotten that assertion.

47 South Main Street (B18,L5) In Historic District; An application was received to demolish/remove one of the two existing barns located in the rear yard. Application was received with photos of the existing condition, site plan of barn and memo outlining the owners need. On July 11, 2014, the owners met on site with Construction Official, Mr. Greg Farrington. A tour of the barn shows that there would be many repairs and issues to address. Mr. Farrington, in his opinion, agreed that the barn was too far in disrepair to salvage. It is not prudent or practical to save. The owners received a quote to refurbish/repair the barn at over $100K. In November 2014, the homeowner’s insurance company informed them the barn will need to be repaired or dismantled by the end of December or risk insurance cancellation.
Ms. Ruth Jost, 45 South Main Street, was present. She expressed her concern that removal of the barn, covered with lead paint, would cause disruption. Mr. Primiano, Architect, stated that access for removal of the barn would be limited to the homeowner’s property. There is no need to use neighboring properties. In addition, every precaution would be taken so the lead paint on the barn adheres to current state standards when demolition occurs. Ms. Marlowe assured Ms. Jost that Mr. Farrington is available should she have further concerns regarding the lead paint and removal process.
Ms. Jost questioned fencing and the zoning. Ms. Marlowe stated that HPC approves the design of the fence and zoning ordinance stipulates the setback and height. Mr. Graydon would be the best person to discuss this with. She has concerns that her dogs remain safe and not trespass onto the neighboring property.
Mr. Primiano, Architect, stated that there are minimal original timbers that the owners would like salvaged, including any hardware.
APPROVED MINUTES Page 2 of 3
Minutes December 16, 2014 Historic Preservation Commission
Hearing no other questions or comment on this application, roll call to approve this application as presented: AYES; Ms. Marlowe, Mr. Szabo, Mr. Walsh, and Mr. Ziegler.
47 South Main Street (B18,L5) In Historic District; Project Architect Mr. Joe Primiano was present for the proposed addition to the back of the existing structure. The new two story addition will measure approximately 24’ x 40’ which will include a proposed porch below the second level addition. The existing portico will be kept and efforts to match details will be made to the proposed porch. The intent is to be consistent with the new details on the addition. The front of the structure will not have any work performed on it. All work will be mainly to the rear and side of the house.
Hearing no other questions or comments, roll call to approve this application as submitted was taken: AYES; Ms. Marlowe, Mr. Szabo, Mr. Walsh, and Mr. Ziegler. Three sets of sealed plans were stamped, dated, and approved. One set shall remain in the HPC file, two copies shall be forwarded to the construction dept.