The regular meeting of the Cranbury Township Historic Preservation Advisory Commission was held at the Town Hall, Cranbury, New Jersey, on October 4, 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, and Chairperson Bobbie Marlowe, were present.  Harry Williams informed the secretary that he would be unable to attend.



The minutes of the September 6, 2005 meeting were reviewed, amended and then approved.  A motion by Diane Stasi to approve, seconded by Kate McConnell, all were in favor.  The minutes of September 20, 2005 meeting were reviewed.  Secretary will make the amended changes and then place them on the next agenda for review.



            30 Liedtke Drive, (B21, L4.10) In Surround Zone; Contractor Bill Hoey of NJ Solar Power, LLC and homeowner Sudhakar Venkatesh were present for discussion of the proposed solar panels to be installed on the roof of existing house.  Mr. Hoey provided an actual proposed unit panel for viewing purposes proposed for installation.  The panels, if installed properly, sit flat 3” to 4” above the roof, approximately 8” from the gutter and close to the valley.  These panels, for optimum efficiency, should face south.  The front of 30 Liedtke Drive faces south, so the solar panel would be mounted on the front roof.  HPAC informed the contractor and homeowner that the homes built on Liedtke Drive are built within close proximity of the Historic District and that consideration to the front façade was taken into account.   It was mentioned that the homeowner should inform the neighbors of his proposal for solar panel installation.  For a better perspective and visual understanding, HPAC would like to view a house that has these panels installed.  The home with installed solar panels is 5 Deer Cross Lane, North Brunswick.  This application will return on October 18 for further review.

            22 Maplewood Avenue, (B33, L21) (C) In Historic District; Homeowner Brian Deverin was present for his application.  Returning application does not include garage, per homeowner, he will return at a later date for the garage.  The rear/side porch application has details submitted for HPAC to review.  This porch will have oak tongue and groove flooring to match front porch.  The roof will have shingled GAF Ultraline dimensional shingles, with wainscoting underneath.  The siding was discussed at previous meetings where it was agreed that the original wood siding would remain untouched due to its well-preserved condition.   Discussion lead to the window issue.  HPAC


members had a chance to visit and review the site of the temporarily installed window.  The sash and muntins do not have the same dimension as the original windows.  It was felt, by HPAC, that this window does not compliment this structure.   Information was provided to homeowner regarding windows that are more appropriate.  Research will be performed with a return visit to report on the findings.   HPAC approved the porch application, all in favor.



The agenda applications were put aside for the public portion of the meeting. Present were Richard Stannard, Pari Stave, Betty Wagner, Bill Bunting and Mark Berkowsky.  Mark distributed printed comments regarding proposed Chapters 21 and 93.  

In Chapter 21, Mark expressed that 21-3B1 & 2 should have “if not residents meet the criteria” added to the end of paragraph. 21-7B add “the Commission’s files include references to Cranbury Historical & Preservation Society’s (CHPS’s) files and records, where much historical data exists”.

The handout recommended changes include Chapter 93-2 to add SHALL-means mandatory requirement; SHOULD-means strongly recommended suggestion. 93-3A have sentence modified.  93-4E 4 is a typo error.  93-5A & B clarify sentence. 93-6C-delete “most” from sentence. Chapter 93-6E3, E4, E5, E8(last sentence), E10, E11a, b and c, E11d, E12a1, E12a3, E12a6, E12a7, E12a8, E12a9, E12a10, E12b,  E12c3, E12c4, E13b, E13d, E14b, E14c, E15a, E15b, E16, E17, 93-7B4 second and third sentence; all of word “shall” be changed to “should”.  93-6E8 first sentence change “should” to “shall”.  93-6E12c1 clarify the end of sentence.  93-613e change paragraph to read “Interior storm windows properly designed are preferable.   If exterior storm windows are used, they should not damage or obscure the windows and frames”. 93-E14c change the second sentence to read “Doors on a new building shall harmonize with the scale, proportion and rhythm…”.  93-6E15a revise sentence to read “Open front porches shall not be enclosed in a manner which results in diminution or loss of historic character by using solid material such as wood, stucco, or masonry”.  Mark expressed that “shall” and “should” are in places where they are appropriate but there are general comments that do represent the Secretary of Interior Standards.  Mark summed up by stating that the lawyers and outside professionals have much to say and that ultimately, the elected officials are the ones that have to look at this.  It is what the citizens of the community who volunteer our time want. This handout will be attached to the minutes for the record and will be forwarded to the subcommittee for their review.

Discussion ensued of the proposed changes.  HPAC expressed that lawyers and other professionals worked to update the ordinance did so that it is compliant with the Municipal Land Use Law (MLUL), Certified Local Government (CLG) and The Secretary of Interior Standards.  A provision of hardships or the granting of exceptions does exist.  The submitted changes from Mark will be forward to the committee for their review and comments.  

HPAC relayed to Richard Stannard that their goal is to work with homeowners and clarify what is and what is not acceptable.  The new ordinance details and guidelines are much more specific and clearer on what is desire to keep the Historic District (HD) preserved.  Many homeowners in town feel strongly that the whole look of the HD should be maintained.   Then there are those who live in the buffer zone feel that they do not need to adhere as the HD homes have raised objections.   All agree that the current and future board members have an ordinance that is clear and concise and is consistent with state standards for historic preservation.   New owners are moving and they are taking the efforts of renovating, realizing the value of living in a HD.                 

Update status for 7 Stockton Drive, (Block 18.02, Lot 7) (ZBA089-05) homeowner applied for zoning approval. HPAC reviewed and approved the fence application in November 2004.  A copy of the HPAC approval letter dated November 19, 2004 was re-submitted to the Zoning Department. 


Bill Gittings presented a letter documenting that 8 Westminster Place (Block 9, Lot 31) “along

with a structural engineer found the following unsatisfactory structural conditions.  The east half of

the house had severe termite damage in the floor structure including failed framing.  The foundation

is also unsatisfactory.  The lower stone portions of the foundation were bellowing due to soils pressure and portions of the foundation walls above grade line were only four inches thick and in severely deteriorated condition.”  Pictures supporting his statements were attached.



1 Cranbury Neck Road, (Block 21, Lot 18) (C) In Historic District.  Application submitted no one present for porch application.  Homeowner would like to repair the side porch by installing new wooden posts as existing, new tongue & groove southern pine flooring and the repair and reinstall the existing rails, spindles and upper spindles at roof.  This replace/repair in kind application was reviewed and approved by all.

84 North Main Street, (Block 29, Lot 6) (C/C-) In Historic District.  Application was received on September 21, 2005 for an emergency re-roofing.  This home is scheduled to be on the house tour so the homeowner was not in a hurry for this re-roofing application.  HPAC reviewed and approved the application, all in favor.

101 Plainsboro Road, (Block 28, Lot 18) (C)  In Historic District.  Application was received on September 30, 2005 for the removal of existing angle bay box window to be replaced with a more sympathetic window.  A window of similar style to the proposed replacement box window exists on the rear of house.  The application and plan was reviewed and approved by all.  

            133 Plainsboro Road (Block 23, Lot 20) In Surround Zone.  Application was received on September 30, 2005 for an emergency re-roofing.  The time frame for re-roofing structure by the contractor will be after the meeting of October 4, 2005.  This application was reviewed and approved by all.



There being no further business, on motion duly made by Bobbie Marlowe, seconded by Kate McConnell, and carried, the meeting was thereupon adjourned at 10: 40 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 October 4, 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