The regular meeting of the Cranbury Township Historic Preservation Advisory Commission was held at the Town Hall, Cranbury, New Jersey, on September 20, 2005 at 7:30 p.m.



Pursuant of the Sunshine Law, adequate notice in accordance with the Open Public Meetings Act (N.J.S.A. 10:4-5) was provided on January 4, 2005 of this meeting’s date, time, place and agenda was mailed to the news media, posted on the Township bulletin board, mailed to those requesting personal notice and filed with the Municipal Clerk.



With a quorum present, Chairperson Bobbie Marlowe called the meeting to order and acted as the Chairperson thereof, and, Linda M. Scott, Secretary for the Committee, performed as Secretary.



Kate McConnell, Diane Stasi, Don Jo Swanagan, Harry Williams and Chairperson Bobbie Marlowe, were present. 



The minutes of the September 6, 2005 meeting were not available for approval.



            32 Liedtke Dr., (B21, L4.12)  In Surround Zone.  Homeowner Amy Bozich was present to discuss her fencing application.  The builder had installed fencing along both sides and rear portions of the backyard.  She would like to extend the fencing, with gates, between both sides of existing house and yard, enclosing the backyard.  This application was reviewed, discussed and approved by all. 

            99 North Main St. (B28, L1.01 & 1.02) In Historic District.  John Corr was present to discuss two applications that were received the morning of September 20.  Delivery to members was that afternoon, not allowing ample time for HPAC to review or research. 

The first application John is seeking amendment to a prior approval of the pergola pillars as built.  The change is for 3 pillar/columns and not the 4 pillar/columns as previously approved.  John states that the reason for the change from 4 to 3 was due to the alignment and view obstruction that 4 pillars caused looking outside from the interior of the existing house. HPAC approved the amended change for the pillars/columns on the as built pergola, all in favor.

Discussion lead into the roof pitch.  John stated that the roof pitch was a field change per the recommendation by the builder.  A safety concern of heavy snows and the pitch capability of handling such a load was a factor for the change.  HPAC explained to John that there is a procedure when a change in plan happens, contractors are aware of procedures and that they are required to submit plans for any type of field changes.  John asked about the historical relevance of the 1˝ ” or a 4” pitch of a roof.   A 1 ˝ “ rise per foot of run equals a total approved roof height above the pergola of 2’1”.  A 4” rise per foot of run equals 5’10” of height of roof above pergola.  HPAC stated that the shallow pitch, as approved, would not have had such a visual impact as it is built.   In addition, when the height of inches correlates to the difference in feet, there is a large difference in


the rake pitch.  This issue was addressed when the pergola application was previously approved.  Two residents spoke at the meeting regarding this issue, one spoke of the snow load concern in addition to the amount of time that would be involved of getting through the proper approval process and re-scheduling of contractors.   The other resident spoke of the existing tin roof color.  She stated that due to the color, it is very eye catching and she felt that if it was to oxidize (rust) would be more pleasing to the eye.  John agreed with the color issue and thought that the roof would have rusted due to the amount of time that has passed.  DonJo felt that there are more acceptable alternative roofing materials, such as matching the garage roof, would work as a possible compromise so the homeowner would not have the expense of rebuilding the roof pitch.  Diane, Kate, Harry and Bobbie all agree that the procedure and process of approval of the roof pitch creates a standard that compromises HPAC, who consequently denied this application.  John informed HPAC that he will appeal to the Township Committee.

            The second application that John Corr would like approval for is a 5’ high gate to be installed in the front yard.  It will start from front corner of the existing garage and end at the front (center) pergola pillar/column facing North Main Street.  A picture of a matching gate, existing on the opposite side of house, was supplied.  HPAC discussed, reviewed and approved, with all in favor.

            7 Bunker Hill, (B23, L39) In Historic District.  Homeowner Richard Schroeder was present to discuss his proposal of re-roofing existing roof and adding a dormer roof to house new casement windows that will be raised higher than the existing.  Photos of roof and place where dormer will be situated were submitted with application.  Two layers of existing roof shingles will be removed.  The new casement windows will be the same style and size of existing.  HPAC discussed, reviewed and approved this application with all in favor.

            25 South Main Street, (B35.L8) In Historic District.  No one attended to represent the property that belongs to the First Presbyterian Church.  This building sits across the street from the church office and next to the Inn parking lot.  Proposed is to re-roof the buidling tearing off the old, replacing it with a 3-tab 40-year timber line asphalt shingle.  Also, chimney will be re-flashed and re-pointed using the existing bricks.  All existing built-in gutters will be relined with copper.  HPAC reviewed and approved this application, all in favor.

            139 Plainsboro Road,  (B23, L17) In Surround Zone.  This returning application for the retaining wall shows color photo simulated with the brick wall.  There are mixed reviews, house is in the buffer zone and a newer home.  Existing wall is made of railroad ties.  HPAC would like to see a sample of the proposed product.  Secretary will request a sample to be viewed in the office; HPAC will stop in so a decision can be rendered soon.



Harry had a discussion with a resident, who felt that HPAC public relations could be improved upon.  Other members stated that not all residents feel this way.  There are people who stop members and query them as to why certain homes were allowed to do certain visual ‘improvements’.

The budget was reviewed and discussed.  The printing item is currently $.00 balance.  Funds will be needed in this account to allow for the printing of the Guidelines.  There is a question as to who would pay for the Guidelines.  Is this something that could be posted on the website?  Doing so will allow everyone to access to them.  It is anticipated that this will be a reality with the upcoming Chapter 21 and 93.  The text of the Guidelines has been completed; the photos are a pending issue.  The photo layout is the next step.  This requested money can be used for the latter.  Secretary will submit the proposed budget to the Finance Dept.







There being no further business, on motion duly made by Bobbie Marlowe, seconded by DonJo Swanagan, and carried, the meeting was thereupon adjourned at 10:00 pm.




I, Undersigned, do hereby certify;

That I am duly acting secretary of the Cranbury Township Historic Preservation Advisory Commission and,

That the foregoing minutes, of the Historic Preservation Advisory Commission, held on September 20, 2005, consisting of 3 pages, constitutes a true and correct copy of the minutes of the said meeting.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto do subscribe, my name of said Historic Preservation Advisory Commission this November 1, 2005





Linda M. Scott, Secretary