MINUTES
OF THE
CRANBURY TOWNSHIP
HISTORIC PRESERVATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE
CRANBURY, NEW JERSEY
MIDDLESEX COUNTY
TIME AND
PLACE OF MEETING
The regular meeting of the Cranbury
Township Historic Preservation Advisory Commission was held at the Town Hall,
Cranbury, New Jersey, on February 7, 2006 at 7:30 p.m.
STATEMENT OF ADEQUATE NOTICE
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 3, 2006 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.
CALL TO ORDER
With a quorum present, Chairwoman Bobbie
Marlowe called the meeting to order and acted as the Chairman thereof, and,
Linda M. Scott, Secretary for the Commission, performed as Secretary.
MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE
Kate McConnell, Diane Stasi, Harry
Williams and Chairperson Bobbie Marlowe, were present.
MINUTES
The minutes of January 17, 2006
meeting were reviewed and amended. They
will be retyped and placed on the February 21 agenda.
APPLICATIONS
99
North Main Street, (B28,L1.01) In Historic District; Attorney Frank Brennan and homeowner John
Corr were present for the submitted addendum regarding the ‘as built’ pergola
roof (previously denied at June 7, 2005 HPAC meeting). Frank gave a brief summary of the past
applications and its evolving process. Frank
stated that he and Trishka Waterbury discussed this issue. Both feel that this “repackaged ‘as built’
application” be addressed. He also states that the submitted application cites the
current HPAC ordinance, references the Secretary of Interior Standards (SOIS),
and the submitted photos supporting his argument. Frank feels that this application addendum is
consistent with the SOIS.
With the
submitted “repackaged” application, a copy of the original garage and pergola
plan drawing (date recd.Jan.5, 2004) and a drawing of the existing as built
garage and pergola (date recd.Jan.24, 2006) were compared. Frank highlighted the plan changes in the
number of pillars/columns, stone veneer height, brackets and roof pitch. The
accuracy of the submitted ‘as built’ drawing was queried. Both drawings were compared and
measured. It is not clear of the two
submitted drawings, which one represent the accurate proportions and height of
the garage structure. This alters the proportion, visual impact, massing and appearance
of the roof pitch. HPAC feels that the overall massing overwhelms
the house. The original request
(December 2003) of lowering the roof pitch was to prevent the pitch from overwhelming
the existing buildings. Based on the
approved pitch of January 2004 plans the galvanized roof material was approved,
as it would not be obvious with a low roof pitch.
Frank focused on the submitted photos. The photos are of roof pitches within and
outside the Cranbury Historic District. The
Corr property is in the District. Frank
states the photos support the overall design of roof pitch, and there is no
difference of roof pitches used on historic buildings throughout Cranbury. He also stated that the pitch of the roof cannot
necessarily be a big issue. He
addressed the SOIS and the
challenges of new construction differentiated or similar to an existing house. Frank stated the two massive structures facing
street side and the pergola with the roof pitch tries to visually connect the
two together. He also stated the pergola roofing material is
the same used on historic barns throughout Cranbury.
Harry, a
contractor by trade, stated that he was not a member of HPAC when the
application was approved. After reviewing, he feels that HPAC was
generous allowing the free standing garage built while not following the same
configuration of the existing house. Existing
now is a contemporary garage and tying the two together is the pergola.
Mr. Corr
cited the dollar cost to him of prior HPAC recommendations.
HPAC
reiterated that new construction should harmonize. They also feel that the garage is beginning
to take on characteristics of a house.
In addition, the garage should not dominate, which is happening with the
as built pergola. Disproportionate massing
is reflected and highlighted by the starkness of the galvanized tin roof. Adding to the visual mass are an approved fence
and gate that has been approved, but not installed as of this date.
Kate read
from current Ordinance (93-13 E(h)) referencing Roof Shape: the roof slope of a
building shall be visually compatible with buildings to which it is visually
related. Kate feels that the roof shape
was not visually compatible.
Diane
submitted colored photos that were taken on this day, taken at different angles
to give a better picture of the site.
Opinions
on both sides ensued about the roof material.
Frank stated that the same materials are used on the Updike barn. HPAC stated there are differences between the
Updike barn and the Corrs’ garage, such as building use, style and location. The roofing material was approved, but on a
lower pitched roof. Frank solicited HPAC for their input asking to
creatively look at the “as built’ and make it work in a way that might not
offend and not have the homeowner tear down the existing.
After much
discussion and review, HPAC feels that the ‘repackaged as built’ application
does not alter the previous concerns of proportion, visual impact and
appearance. HPAC stands by their
decision of denial, all votes for not approved.
39 North
Main Street, (B23,L51.01) In Historic District; application,
photos and brochure submitted (to have a wrought iron hand rail installed near
front entrance door as indicated. Owner
submitted a last minute change from wrought iron to a PVC rail. HPAC feels the iron railing is more
appropriate-but application lacks a spec sheet.
The PVC material railing is not appropriate. HPAC reviewed, discussed and denied this
application. All votes for not approved.
139 Plainsboro Road; (B23,L17) In
Surround Zone; application was received
for a porch railing on a ranch style house.
The rail style is the same design as the new deck located on the rear of
the house. The existing hand wrought iron handrails will
remain. HPAC reviewed, discussed and
denied this application stating that the railing is not appropriate for a front
porch. Homeowner should view other same
style homes for the style of railing used.
All votes for not approved.
14
Prospect Street; (B28,L15) In
Historic District; application was
received for the design of two arbors and fencing. One arbor will be installed close to the
street and the other close to the rear back.
The proposed arbors, one situated on each side of house, are two
different designs. HPAC reviewed this
application and feels the arbors should stylistically relate to each
other. The application was denied with
all in favor of no approval.
120
South Main Street, (B16,L11); ZBA100-05; Outside of District and Surround
Zone. HPAC reviewed this Zoning Application, but due to the location, there is no
need for a comment.
DISCUSSION
Diane took
several colored photographs of 99 North Main Street, on this date that
show different angles for a better view of the site. They were submitted for the record. Kate requested to have a copy of these
photos. Secretary will make Kate a copy.
Kate gave additional comments regarding 99
North Main Street referencing SOIS #9 new construction work shall be
differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials,
features, size, scale and proportions, and massing to protect the integrity of
the property and its environment.
Discussion (cont.)
A motion
was made by Harry, second by Bobbie, carried by all, to enter into closed
session for discussion of the vacancy.
Shortly thereafter, closed session exited and re-opened for public.
March 21,
Tuesday, Preservation NJ will host a
Commission Assistance & Mentoring Program (CAMP). Secretary will sign up three members to
attend.
HPAC
requested that applicant attend when their application is discussed at the
meeting. This would prevent unnecessary
delays in the proposed work on the application.
Kate spoke
with Committeeman Wayne Wittman regarding the barn. They visited the site and decided to consider
a corrugated metal roof. The other existing barns had their roof replaced, with
a plywood decking. It seems that CHPS
has offered to handle the contributions for saving the barn.
Kate will
contact Richard to find out when the cell tower will be on the agenda.
ADJOURNMENT OF MEETING
There being no further business, on
motion duly made by Bobbie Marlowe, seconded by Kate McConnell, and carried,
the meeting was thereupon adjourned at 10:05 pm.
CERTIFICATE OF SECRETARY
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 February 7, 2006, 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 March
21, 2006.
__________________________________________
Linda M. Scott, Secretary