Cranbury Forum | Bulletin | Info Sharing
[Click here to bookmark this page: http://cranbury.info]
▪
Cranbury School
▪
Cranbury Township
▪
Cranbury Library
▪
Cranbury.org
▪
Cranburyhistory.org
(Press Ctrl and = keys to increase font size)
Search
Register (optional)
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
[http://cranbury.info]
->
News | Events
Post a reply
Username
Subject
Message body
Emoticons
Font colour:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Indigo
Violet
White
Black
Font size:
Tiny
Small
Normal
Large
Huge
Close Tags
[quote="anon-0493"][quote="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.[/quote][/quote]
Options
HTML is
ON
BBCode
is
ON
Smilies are
ON
Disable HTML in this post
Disable BBCode in this post
Disable Smilies in this post
All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Jump to:
Select a forum
Topics
----------------
News | Events
School | Parenting
Blogs by Cranbury Residents
Shopping | Good Deals | Price Talk
Home Sweet Home
House For Sale
Home Sales Pricing Records
Financial | Stocks | Mutual Funds
Cool Bytes & Bits
Garage Sale | ForSale Ads | Things to Trade
Tech Related (PC, Internet, HDTV, etc.)
Interesing and Fun Stuff to Share
What's Your Favorite?
Interests | Hobbies
Cranbury History
Radom Thoughts | Sports | Kitchen Sink
Amazon Deals
Local Business Info
----------------
Local Business Ads (FREE)
Support
----------------
Daily Sponsored Message & Amazon Ads
About Us | Your Privacy | Suggestion | Sponsored
Test Area (Practice your posting skills here)
Topic review
Author
Message
anon-0493
Posted: Sat, Aug 15 2015, 10:00 pm EDT
Post subject: Re: HPC Hypocrisy
Can't you people put two and two together?
anon-7q04
Posted: Sat, Aug 15 2015, 8:58 am EDT
Post subject: Re: HPC Hypocrisy
anon-0493 wrote:
anon-0588 wrote:
anon-0493 wrote:
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.
So, let me get this straight... If you don't support spending tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars to move a bunch of barns to a park where no one can use, touch or enter them, you "do not understand historic preservatation at all".
You are a fool!
Only a fool calls another person a fool, and whoever screams the loudest is the guiltiest.
These posts have had nothing to do with the barn park. The barns in question are privately owned by people who are in a position to save them and do not think they should.
Unless you have access to someone's bank account you have no idea if they are in a position to save the barns.
anon-0493
Posted: Sat, Aug 15 2015, 6:45 am EDT
Post subject: Re: HPC Hypocrisy
anon-0588 wrote:
anon-0493 wrote:
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.
So, let me get this straight... If you don't support spending tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars to move a bunch of barns to a park where no one can use, touch or enter them, you "do not understand historic preservatation at all".
You are a fool!
Only a fool calls another person a fool, and whoever screams the loudest is the guiltiest.
These posts have had nothing to do with the barn park. The barns in question are privately owned by people who are in a position to save them and do not think they should.
anon-0588
Posted: Sat, Aug 15 2015, 12:36 am EDT
Post subject: Re: HPC Hypocrisy
anon-0493 wrote:
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.
So, let me get this straight... If you don't support spending tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars to move a bunch of barns to a park where no one can use, touch or enter them, you "do not understand historic preservatation at all".
You are a fool!
anon-0493
Posted: Fri, Aug 14 2015, 11:33 pm EDT
Post subject: Re: HPC Hypocrisy
anon-sp0n wrote:
anon-0493 wrote:
I'm all for farmland preservation for the HagertyCheny debacle, but I'm sure the owners of the property's want their money.
So you would like the Cranberry taxpayers to front the money to pay for all that land at fair market value to preserve it then pay to demolish the existing structures? If so, do you have an estimate of what this would cost taxpayers? If not, then your suggestion is not a real one and you should try again. Easy to call it a debacle if you don't have an actual alternative.
YES, I would love to see those properties cleared and left undeveloped or farmed, or preserved as a park like Heritage Park across the street. Our former TC's have taken on preservation projects like this in the past and our town is better for it. Taxpayer's never win the tax-ratable game. It will cost us more in the long run if the land is developed than it would if it is preserved. Take a look at the "High Point" developer's website and think about what we will get from them.
anon-sp0n
Posted: Mon, Aug 10 2015, 12:50 pm EDT
Post subject: Re: HPC Hypocrisy
anon-sp0n wrote:
I just used public records to look up the purchase price and the most recent tax assessment of the property. On that basis, for your claim of "multi-million" to be even barely true they will have to make at least $1.4MM in improvements to the property. Do you have specific knowledge that the proposed addition will cost or result in at least $1.4MM in improvements?
Or are you just making this up as you go?
Correction. $1.15MM, not $1.4MM.
anon-sp0n
Posted: Mon, Aug 10 2015, 11:14 am EDT
Post subject: Re: HPC Hypocrisy
I just used public records to look up the purchase price and the most recent tax assessment of the property. On that basis, for your claim of "multi-million" to be even barely true they will have to make at least $1.4MM in improvements to the property. Do you have specific knowledge that the proposed addition will cost or result in at least $1.4MM in improvements?
Or are you just making this up as you go?
anon-sp0n
Posted: Mon, Aug 10 2015, 11:10 am EDT
Post subject: Re: HPC Hypocrisy
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.
anon-sp0n
Posted: Mon, Aug 10 2015, 11:03 am EDT
Post subject: Re: HPC Hypocrisy
anon-0493 wrote:
anon-np42 wrote:
anon-0493 wrote:
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.
"Multi-million dollar complex"? Where exactly is this property you are referring to that is going to have a multi-million dollar "complex"?
What is it you would like to see the Township do with the Haggerty/Cheney property (within its control)?
Pay attention please. Read the HPC minutes and you will find out about the property in question.
I'm all for farmland preservation for the HagertyCheny debacle, but I'm sure the owners of the property's want their money.
Okay, just reviewed all the minutes for the year and found no reference in them to a "multi-million dollar complex" on Main Street. The closest I could find was the following, which referenced the two barns but says nothing about a "multi-million dollar complex." So please answer the original question that you dismissed by saying people should read the minutes. Please cite which minutes reference "multi-million dollar complex" or cite your factual basis for knowing that.
47 South Main (B18 ,L5), In Historic District, Classified C; Homeowners Mr. Pete & Mrs. Susan Mavoides were present for discussion of the submitted application. In December 2014, HPC approved an addition to the existing house and demolition of one of the two free standing barns on this property. The owners are present for removal or demolition of the second deteriorated two story barn structure located on the southern boundary. In July 2014, the owners invited Mr. Greg Farrington, Construction Official, and Ms. Bobbie Marlowe, HPC Chair, to come and visually survey the site. Mr. Farrington found peg joinery upstairs, evidence that the barn may be over 100 years old. Modifications to the structure work against preserving the historic integrity of the barn. French doors and four modern windows, brick foundation, mismatched siding with new bead board, and two skylights have been added which alter the original appearance. Ms. Marlowe noted low interior structural beams, limiting usage. Ms. Mavoides stated that relocating the deteriorated barn is difficult and would not be cost effective.
Homeowners would like to repurpose any wood (interior/exterior), including large hand hewn beams, and any hardware into the new barn/accessory buildings.
Hearing no other questions or concerns regarding this application, roll call to approve this application as submitted was taken: AYES: Mr. Banks, Ms. Marlowe, Mr. Szabo, Mr. Walsh and Mr. Ziegler. Record will reflect that Mr. Williams did not participate in roll call approval.
anon-sp0n
Posted: Mon, Aug 10 2015, 10:57 am EDT
Post subject: Re: HPC Hypocrisy
anon-0493 wrote:
I'm all for farmland preservation for the HagertyCheny debacle, but I'm sure the owners of the property's want their money.
So you would like the Cranberry taxpayers to front the money to pay for all that land at fair market value to preserve it then pay to demolish the existing structures? If so, do you have an estimate of what this would cost taxpayers? If not, then your suggestion is not a real one and you should try again. Easy to call it a debacle if you don't have an actual alternative.
anon-5651
Posted: Mon, Aug 10 2015, 7:38 am EDT
Post subject: Re: HPC Hypocrisy
anon-0493 wrote:
anon-0493 wrote:
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.
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.
[/quote]
It is your home. What don't you get? A barn is not a home. A home should be able to be extended and renovated. None of the homes on Main St or the HPC area are original all have been modified.
If you feel so strongly that people should be forced for the betterment of the town to spend more money than necessary go to the TC and ask for the town to discount property taxes or provide funding. See how far that goes. Do you know what the homes will look like and property values will be for the homes if your way is the only way?
Most of the homeowners owned homes before HPC had any authority. The TC changed the rules on existing homeowners in 2007 and suddenly their home became more expensive to maintain and restrictive to own.
I am complaining about a roof because it is an example of how HPC went over board to protect homes. An asphalt roof is 5-10k, but they were making people do slate or faux slate which costs 8-10x more.
HPC does a good job. They balance preservation and costs to homeowners now.
Again, this is not a museum.
anon-0493
Posted: Sun, Aug 9 2015, 10:31 pm EDT
Post subject: Re: HPC Hypocrisy
anon-0493 wrote:
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.
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.[/quote]
anon-0493
Posted: Sun, Aug 9 2015, 10:30 pm EDT
Post subject: Re: HPC Hypocrisy
anon-np42 wrote:
anon-0493 wrote:
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.
"Multi-million dollar complex"? Where exactly is this property you are referring to that is going to have a multi-million dollar "complex"?
What is it you would like to see the Township do with the Haggerty/Cheney property (within its control)?
Pay attention please. Read the HPC minutes and you will find out about the property in question.
I'm all for farmland preservation for the HagertyCheny debacle, but I'm sure the owners of the property's want their money.
anon-0493
Posted: Sun, Aug 9 2015, 10:26 pm EDT
Post subject: Re: HPC Hypocrisy
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-np42
Posted: Sun, Aug 9 2015, 9:22 am EDT
Post subject: Re: HPC Hypocrisy
anon-0493 wrote:
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.
"Multi-million dollar complex"? Where exactly is this property you are referring to that is going to have a multi-million dollar "complex"?
What is it you would like to see the Township do with the Haggerty/Cheney property (within its control)?
anon-5651
Posted: Sun, Aug 9 2015, 8:47 am EDT
Post subject: Re: HPC Hypocrisy
anon-0493 wrote:
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.
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.