Okay. Um, this Historic Preservation Commission meeting is being held on August 19th, 2025 at 7 p.m. Statement of adequate notice pursuant to the Sunshine Law. Adequate notice in accordance with the Open Public Meetings Act. Um, NJSA
104-6 was provided on January 28th, 2025 of this meeting's date, time, and place. The agenda was mailed to the Cranberry Press and Home News Tribune, posted on the Township Bulletin board, and mailed to those requesting personal notice, and filed with the municipal clerk. Roll
call and volunteer hours, please. Miss Sutmire. >> Uh, here, um, oh boy, >> a million. >> Like, I'd say like eight. Miss Ryan is out. Mr. Guyire
>> here two hours plus the meeting. >> Yep. U Mr. Hull >> here two and a half hours. >> Miss Marlo >> here. And Mr. Savo >> here three hours.
>> Okay, we have a quorum chair. Okay, great. Um, so we are doing a different order than we typically do. Um, because we have some guests and we want to make sure we're efficient with time uh from
our guests. Um, so we're going to begin with some old business, which is our um part of our HPC goal, one of our goals for the year, which is identifying and designating historic sites outside of the historic district. Um so what we'll
do is we'll first talk briefly about the uh protic family farm 147 uh plains burough road and I think the where we stood with that was that the town committee was going to be having um some walkthroughs and I guess a question
maybe for Mr. Christopher, if you know or know, would you know what the next steps would be with with that? [Music] >> Um, so quick update, the walkthroughs happened. >> Okay.
>> Um, of which I was part of one. Uh, we have not connected on the actual sort of downloading of information from one person to the other. Um, as we all know, like the property is unqualified disaster, right? Like it's it's a mess
inside. Like I was actually afraid walking through that place. >> Wow. >> Um, every step on the floors was squishy, for lack of a better term. Um, that being said, I'm not a structural engineer. Um, but I can certainly
report back that it is a challenging property for sure. It is um I I really did sort of question whether or not folks should be in there without some sort of equipment, hard hat, etc. It was Barbara Rogers actually did put on a
hard hat to go in the building. Um, >> that being said, >> that way for some time. >> It's been that way. Yeah, probably for >> when it was purchased. 20ish years. Exactly. Exactly. >> Um so yeah, I mean that's just a status report. That's what happened. There
there has not been a you know sort of a quorum to discuss what next steps would be at this point. Um but those walkthroughs did happen last week. >> So what is that uh next step going to be? Is there going to be a closed door meeting to discuss or is it going to be taking place in the next township
committee meeting? Can we add it to the agenda so the TC members can? >> Yeah, I don't know what's on our agenda yet. I'll reach out to um Lisa and figure out whether or not we're going to add that to the next meeting specifically. There will certainly not be closed door meetings. Um we don't
really do that. Um but we will certainly have conversation um and understand what next steps will be. Was there any additional new information added to provided to you? >> There there wasn't necessarily. Most of
the sort of reporting and conversation that I had with the property owner um was well well known at this point um between all our working sessions and conversations we've had. >> Did the property owner ask for next steps? Um, I asked the property owner to see
what next steps would be as far as the I think the ask going back twoish three months now. Um, was a follow-up structural report. Um, which I don't believe is done. >> No. >> So other than that, yeah, there there
are no official next steps. >> Yeah, there were other things as well in addition to just a follow-up structural report that we had put in a memo to TC. >> Correct. Yeah, >> they should go back to that because >> Yeah, >> like the tarp for the roof. >> The roof.
>> A lot of things. Yeah. Plus, I know that >> doing a survey of the property versus >> the roof tarp was not on that I >> noticed. Again, >> I imagine I would notice a giant blue roof tarp. So, I'm going to guess it wasn't there. >> And again, it's still questionable how they were able to create plans for a
replica of a new structure without even doing a survey of the existing structure that was already there. Understood. >> Does the homeowner acknowledge that he was aware of that demolition by neglect is not an acceptable
>> reason for getting rid of the property? I mean, it's in the deed. It's in the deed. He knew that when he bought the property. >> It is. >> The time to discuss the condition of it should have been when he bought it. >> When he bought the property. That's But I I I don't think there's a question about that. I think there are certain facts
>> that are indisputable. I think >> okay >> the deed restriction is there. I think the condition of the property was known two years ago or three years ago when it was purchased. >> I don't think anybody's debating that. >> Yeah. Okay. >> In in my you know in my conversation with the property owner I don't think there's any debate. I think the debate
is >> whether or not >> he he is responsible for the upkeep from the time that he purchased. >> That's that's right. I think there's some discussion as to whether or not previous owners >> doesn't >> should have also done the same.
>> But the deep restriction says extenduating circumstances. What are the extenduation circumstances? >> I'm not I'm not here to fight his battle. These are all questions that back on on what happened, >> what position he was taking. >> Correct. Yes. I'm just Yes. There there
are >> Yes. There's been decades of neglect at that property. I don't think it's gotten >> it's >> I don't think that I don't think the state of that property happened at the last 27 months,
>> but it was being it was being >> Yeah, the water was a new thing. We knew that >> the water is is within the last couple of years. And I think where I'm where I'm scratching my head is that the deed restriction says that there that it can be removed based on an extenduating
circumstance. I think is the language. Something like that. And I still don't quite understand what that is. Is it financial? Is it I mean, I know there were health issues brought up. I I still just don't understand what the reasoning is. Um and so I'm just still scratching
my head about this. >> Yeah. I just feel bad that this is essentially it's structural, you know, right? That would be the only reason to >> Yeah. >> by the letter of that deed restriction to take that down. And again, I'll I'll reiterate, I'm not a structural engineer. Yeah. >> Walking through it. I wanted to put my
eyes on it. >> Well, it certainly I I didn't go see it, so I can't say with probably healthier to have not seen it. >> But the fact Yeah. But the fact that the floors are mushy or soft or sagging or bouncy or
whatever, that doesn't necessarily mean that it can't be repaired. >> Yeah. Look, >> you could go you can go and put sistering, you know, sister in new joists, replace what's there and repair that problem. >> Again,
>> I'm not here to defend. >> No, >> report back what happened >> and my visuals. It's just confusing for us because like you know the structural engineers had all said that it is still possible to be the structural engineers that were paid by the property owners to
to review this all stated that it could be rehabilitated. And so I guess I'm still questioning and scratching my head around why we're still going down this path and why we're spending manpower hours on this. Um so I think it'd be good for a decision to be
made and I think it's pretty clear how HPC feels. It's been clear since day one. So, yeah. No, no question there. >> Okay. All right. Cool. >> Can I have a I have a question. So, was there any for this walkth through meeting, was there any discussion at the
TC level to include somebody from HPC or from the historical society to walk through with you guys? >> So, I'd say yes. And it was not our place to invite
folks. it was the we were there at the behest of the property owner and to essentially mandate other folks walk through didn't feel appropriate at the time. Um if there's a reason for that to happen again outside of structural engineers I think we should you know
have that discussion. I was just thinking people who have an interest in historic preservation and have some ideas of >> Yeah. >> you know older structures >> understood >> might have been helpful. >> Yeah, there are lots of people I think
who can help. >> Yeah. So, okay. >> Awesome. >> Okay, great. Thanks, Robert. Um, okay. So, the next item on our agenda is the um affordable the overlap with the the
structures that um we were working to designate that are now overlapped with the affordable housing sites. Um so, in particular, that would be 1234 um 1234 South River Road and 1274 South River
Road. Um and so, thank you for joining our meeting. We I've been in this committee for like almost five years and I think it's the first time I've met you here and it's really great to have you. So, thank you for having me. >> I mean, I guess it's probably a good thing that you haven't been at any of our meetings before.
>> So, I think just quickly to set the stage, 1234, >> yes, >> is not necessarily the perview of the HPC at the moment. the plans have no impact on the dwelling at 1234 and the historical building that's there is not
part of the development plan. So I think we should probably focus the conversation on 1274 if you guys have questions about the overlap of the existing um plan versus um the township and zoning.
I think our first the first thing was um just trying to remember um the the planning board meeting that happened like I think it was last was it last month where they discussed the the um
was it were they discussing both structures or were they discussing just 1274 >> structures or or locations? Locations both locations. Yeah, both. It was the they met for the adoption of the housing element fair share plan which is a
component of the master plan. Correct. >> Okay. So I think um one question that we had um and we started talking about it in our meeting last month and that's why I think we kind of came to the conclusion we would would ask you to
come and explain to us a little bit about um you know um this the planning board meeting came you know was set up and all of a sudden they were talking high
level about zoning. ing and and language. Some of it impacted a historical committee. We weren't invited. We didn't know. I mean, I I I came on to the meeting because I was listening to the recording. Um so I'm just I'm trying I'm wondering if you
might be able to explain to us a little bit about like how that came about and what they really did um in that meeting. >> Okay. So that's the easy question is the planning board adopted the housing element fair share plan which is the town's plan
>> uh essentially to comply with its Mount Laurel affordable housing obligations for the 10-year period which starts this year. >> Okay. Um, and what that plan is, it's a it's a requirement that demonstrates to the court that the town is compliant
with its affordable housing obligations and therefore should not be subject to what they call a builder's remedy lawsuit. >> Sure. >> And that's where a builder can come in and say you're non-compliant and therefore we get to trunk your existing zoning. We can utilize your sewer infrastructure, traffic on roads, and those types of
things. So, it's it's essential that that towns comply with that obligation and demonstrate um because otherwise the court can actually supersede all existing zoning and those types of things. So, um the how you got how how
>> township get to this point without consulting everybody else including um in a lot of ways the planning board which is at the tail end of it. It's because um the Mount Laurel doctrine came about in 1975 with a court decision with the town of Mount Laurel. Mount Laurel had decided I'll give you the
crash course in affordable housing. >> Oh yeah, we we understand all that. We're just trying to understand how a historical committee got brought into a planning um board. >> You're not in the planning board. So you're not you're not in >> meeting how we came up in their in the topic of that topic. There are
historical structures or or I'll call them >> because historical has a certain legal context. There are old structures on sites that are in the township's plan. >> Okay. >> Um and the reason that they are not consulted or or the other boards bodies
commissions are not consulted ahead of time is is because the entire Mount Laurel process is a court process. So it's it's a it's a hole in the law that it's supposed to be a planning process. The entire Mount Laurel doctrine comes out of the municipal land use law and
that says if municipalities are going to utilize their powers to zone, they have to do so equitably. Um and then there are parameters. The problem is the compliance is all in the court process. That requires um essentially confidential, you know, discussions
amongst the governing body. Um and it's it's a an issue because when they amended the Fair Housing Act last year, there are very tight time time constraints. Um the governing body is tasked with identifying the sites,
selecting them, and formulating the plan despite the fact that the law didn't those who adopted the law didn't know that the housing element and fair share plan is not a governing body document. It's actually a planning board document. So it's essentially a case where the people who enacted the laws didn't
understand how the laws actually work. >> Yeah. That's welcome to government, right? >> And so and that becomes the issue. So the governing body because they're actually negotiating with developers, identifying things, um formulating um you know, plans, it's a process that by
its very and because it's litigation by its very nature is done essentially by the governing body via committee or in close session. and we don't have the ability to then go out and and meet and create, you know, issues with other
boards, bodies, commissions and and looking at those types of things. It's essentially on the roll out of the plan that all of the other boards and bodies are seeing it for the first time like the members of the public and that's a function of the litigation process.
>> Okay. So then, so how is it that then we were discussed because what I when I listened to the recording, I got very confused because all of a sudden they were talking about the historic district and they were talking about plaques and the historic district and like what um
like it's it's all of a sudden we were kind of brought into the discussion as they were working on talking about implementing this Mount Laurel. >> I I think you guys might be talking about two different meetings. You're talking about the June planning board meeting where they adopted the fair share and housing plan and you're talking about the July meeting where
they reviewed the consistency of the ordinances um that created the zoning. >> So those are two different meetings and I just wanted to make sure you get I was unaware that there was any discussion about anything historical when they adopted the housing element. >> Yeah. No, that's why I was like yeah no
that's exactly thank you Brandon. >> So that's where we're trying to wrap our heads around. I don't think Kevin or myself can really explain why the members of the planning board brought up HBC while discussing the plan.
I I asked Kevin to come here because there were some questions I think specifically from Brendan. >> Yeah. >> As it relates to how the reszoning of those areas fits in the master plan. >> And that's what the planning board was talking about as well. Exactly. in that
second meeting in July was was that >> yes >> I I don't have the ordinance in front of me I I take it you weren't involved in crafting the ordinance then >> no planners were crafted the ordinance but I'm familiar with the projects that
are that are going to be effectuated by the ordinance >> uh so in particular part of that ordinance uh exempts the newly created zones from the residential design standards Yes, >> one of those one of the aspects of the
residential design standards protects historic sites that are identified in the master plan, which both 1234 and 1274 are identified in the master plan. So, I think that's the meeting and discussion that you're probably more interested in learning about. >> Yeah.
>> Yeah. So that that's essentially the question at hand and I think the identification of a historic property on 1274 specifically a historic building on 127 1274 specifically
is why I hoped Kevin can provide some clarity as to how the plan that's currently >> sorry how this how the the the development plan in the plan is on uh take is good.
>> Okay. >> Yeah. So I I don't know if you have a specific question but but as to the ordinance exempting um the developments of both 1274 and 1234 um that is to provide the greatest
flexibility in the design options to produce affordable housing. U 1274 in particular is a somewhat constrained site sizewise for the number of units that are proposed for that site. >> Um and so in order to provide
um essentially to preserve the structure that's on that site while trying to accommodate the density that is required to have the town compliant with its Mount Laurel obligations. >> Um difficult if not impossible. you just could not or would al would would result
in something that would fundamentally alter the character of not only that site but the street as well because the only way that you could accommodate that density would be to go up which would then overshadow the very building that you're trying to protect.
>> Okay. Um there's a lot packed in there cuz I think what we're trying to wrap our head around is like why um basically so the decision was made tell me am I is this accurate that
basically the decision was made to undo historic preservations that would have been part of that would have preserved this property as part of our ordinance that language was added now to basically undo those
historic protections in order to as you said address the make the building site more attractive for affordable housing is that >> so the f for the first part of it the buildings themselves are not designated and they're not preserved so yeah that
so that so what is in in >> but >> HPC's I guess recommendations and what is incorporated in the master plan yeah are essentially a recommendation that the sites be whether the sites or structures depending on on on how far it goes would be designated but there are
no historic protections to either of those sites. So um so that they're essentially recommendations otherwise they would be designated. So the MLUL is clear that basically HPC makes recommendation is within the governing body's power by ordinance to actually
designate sites or districts and neither of those are in a designated site or in a designated district. And so the governing body is essentially evaluating that recommendation that is set forth in the plan >> against constitutional compliance for
affordable housing purposes. >> But which is goes to our last meeting. >> Yeah. >> Where unfortunately there are there there's a a sort of striation of how things are going to happen, right? Our constitutional requirement to do
affordable housing comes first. and other things are going to fall a little bit lower on that said total. So basic. So okay. So and what I'm just again what we what we when we were looking at language of like and Brendan
I I know you had seen some some language that >> the existing ordinance. >> Yeah. that there was language added in this round that wasn't used ever before in other rounds of affordable housing that disqualified
that that that remove any sort of you know acknowledgement or preserving of you know historic structures that hadn't been done in prior rounds >> because the prior sites that had historic structures on or
or oldistoric structures on We >> So you had commercial sites out on Route 130 in the third round plan. Second round plan, I'm trying to think, you know, we had scattered sites development um South Main Street that that didn't have structures that were being looked
at for for preservated. Yeah. Um and so in order to avoid any um issues down the line because if that language had not been included, a developer could have looked at the ordinance and said, "Wait, you have to
preserve that structure. That site can't accommodate the number of units. Therefore, I can go into court and challenge and seek a builder's remedy because you can the town cannot get the density on that site if there's a requirement that they preserve the structure." 1234 is a little different because it's a 20 acre site. We only
need 10 acres of it. So again, we're really spec focusing specifically on 1274. Yeah. Okay. >> But but you cannot there's unless you're going to fundamentally alter the character and go up, which also increases costs. We are contemplating municipally sponsored projects. So if you want to start doing four, five, six
stories um in order to accommodate that density, you're looking at different construction types. And then you're going to put elevators in which all increase the costs of construction which then gets borne by the taxpayers. So, so there are a lot of
>> historic is one of the components that the governing body is evaluating but they're looking at the totality of financial stability of the town. You know, certainly constitutional compliance is the is the first thing. Second thing is they're looking at site availability and design options. Third,
they're looking at, you know, the finances of the municipality and then ultimately how much of those costs can can be subsidized by grants or state financing, low-inccome housing tax credits, and then ultimately what would be the net cost on the taxpayers. And so
when we're looking at, you know, ideally we'd love to do something, speaking for the governing body, ideally we, you know, the town would love to do something to be able to preserve the structure and have constitutional compliance to do it in a fiscally responsible manner on 1274. That's virtually
>> That's right. >> impossible. >> Did you model it out though? Did you model out what if you used adaptive reuse and got those tax credits for historic preservation adaptive reuse? >> It's not going to work. They're not going to do adaptive reuse for um new
construction. And even on adaptive reuse, how many units are you going to get in there? You're gonna take that and make two, three units out of it. The project calls for 60 units. >> Why are only 10 acres being used on 1234? 10 acres, you said out of 20.
>> Because the development the the development proposal that we have, we can consolidate that development proposal on half the farm site, >> right? So, so we would not at this point there would be no discussion about taking down the farmhouse. Now, if we
were so tight on 1274, why not put more units on 1234 and not make it so tight on 1274? >> Because then we'd have to take more of said property and then remove that historic building. Just putting in the context of this room right now. >> If you have more space to put the units,
you wouldn't have to take the buildings down. Well, if you've been paying attention to the news, we're expected to be in litigation potentially up to the federal courts. Correct. >> So, we cannot put all of our eggs in one basket. >> Yeah. Okay. Um, so what I'm >> I have two. >> Go ahead, please. Yeah.
>> Um, one is question is that you were referring to the listing being identified in the master plan and on that map as recommendations and not a designation. Um but reading the ordinance in the residential design standards, it says
when a track contains historic sites as noted on map X1 of the Cranberry Township master plan, the structure shall be retained in the settings of these historic sites shall be maintained by blah blah blah. So doesn't seem like the ordinance that was put in place depends on a separate designation. And
it actually seems the identification itself putting it on that map in the master plan and both of those structures have been on the map in the master plan since 1993. Um so I think the identification and inclusion in the master plan was
actually the thing that gave them predictions not some hypothetical future designation. >> So what the township did was backdoor historic protections. You you had you wanted your kick and needed two. You didn't want to designate it but you wanted all the protections of it, right? as a lawyer, if I were an applicant, a
lawyer, I would call that into question if I really had a site development that could do it. It has survived that and we represent the township, so I would defend that ordinance. Um, and and we may have even been the township attorneys when that came into place. I can't remember. Um, so but so so that's
provision number one. The law is very clear. If you want to have all the protections of historic designation, you must do it properly and you must do through the designation standpoint. So that's point one. Point two, um that requirement is only for residential development. This is a light industrial
district out there. It's a commercial district. They could knock that building down tomorrow and put up an office building, put up a warehouse building. So the protections are limited. So >> surely surely it was it was reszoning it to residential that even gave it any protection in the first place. Correct. Totally.
>> Yeah. And so we were we're reszoning, but essentially we're putting a whole new zoning scheme in it. I probably didn't need to to put that language in it to exempt it, but I was making sure that it was clear that the type of development that was proposed was going to be specifically exempt from that.
Because if we don't make it clear, a we open ourselves up to challengers that want to try to invalidate the town's plan or at least tie us up in court. We're spending a lot of money on on myself already. Yeah. with with the stuff and we didn't want to create
issues and and so that's that's the reason it was done that way. >> Okay. And my second question doesn't have to do with ordinances or legality. Um but actually just the goal of preserving the historic house. And in the current site plan, it looks like the
biggest impediment to retaining the historic structure is that uh retention base, the storm water management basin at the rear of the property that pushes the new construction and the parking lot all the way up to the street, which leaves no room for to to preserve the
historic structure. Now, if you drive down Main Street to Route 130, there's uh you'll find 112 South Main Street. Uh it's currently under construction, and uh the site plan for 112 South Main Street calls for a detention basin under
the parking lot using 24in HDPE pipe. Uh you can you can see the pipe. It's black. It's corrugated. You can go look at it. It's literally being installed right now. Um, so what would the incremental cost of the township be to put to manage some of the storm water
underground uh in order to retain that historic structure and put some affordable housing in it? >> Uh, the answer to that is I'm an attorney, not an engineer. I have no idea. >> It wasn't considered. It wasn't talked about at all in the plans. uh the there is a developer that was doing the site
and those are questions that you can ask certainly ask the developer during the you know planning board application. >> So the the developer may have had that conversation but the township did not have that conversation about trying to to maximize the space available to to save that structure. I'm not sure that
even if you you did I mean everything that the the discussions that we had is is that preservation of that structure would inhibit the ability to accommodate the density and the infrastructure needs that are required for that development.
But I think what Brendan's asking is if there's an alternative, was it looked at? So this underground underground drainage, which the Cranberry and when they did their expansion, that was one of the considerations and they have underground storm water management
>> under the parking lot. So it can be done. >> Anything can be done. >> Or is it just easier not even listening to your your discussion about pretending? Anything has a solution or as long as you have an unlimited checkbook. >> Well, we don't know if it's unlimited. I
mean, changing >> what's what's the incremental? Was the question asked or was it even proposed that we could do this versus this? >> With storm water management, it's not incremental, it's exponential. And I say that as a plan. I represent planning boards and zoning boards generally.
>> So, storm water management, especially with DP's revisions about five years or so ago, those are exponential costs. when you start doing undergrad stuff and this the federal low-income housing tax credits are not going to compensate you for that because when you are dealing
with affordable housing sites there is a legal requirement to reduce or eliminate what they call cost generative features. So, anything that adds to the um cost of producing affordable housing the
municipality is under legal requirement to eliminate or pay for essentially out of pocket. Um and when you're looking at the acquisition costs for the two properties that are actually two properties that are currently being
contemplated for municipal acquisition plus the contributions that are going in for the third sites that that has been designated in the plan plus the municipality needs to financially guarantee all municipally sponsored projects. um your tax base uh is going
would be very strapped if any of those projects hit a speed bump. Um and so those are the considerations and and I said for for those of you that don't know me, I'm not just somebody who comes from out of my wife grew up here. Fisher Acres is named after my wife's family. So I've been invested in this town
since, you know, high school when when my wife and I started dating. >> Yeah. No, we appreciate you coming. I know it's like a Monday night, seven o'clock. We appreciate you being here. and I'm happy to do it and and and I don't want to come across as, you know, hey, like I'm just the attorney and like, hey, it's I know how much historic
preservation, you know, means and and I know it's been a cornerstone of the the fundamental cornerstone of the town since way before I I was >> we're sitting in it right now because this building was scheduled to be demolished in the late60s.
>> Yeah. Kathy Kathy Cunningham sat and issued my marriage license right at this table. Um so um you know and it's it's one of those things but but you know if they won't I mean there are lots of considerations and a lot of it has to do with kind of for lack of a better term
the draconian rules of affordable housing. And I mean I was just on a a 4h hour seminar today about the powers of eminent domain. Um, and it's amazing that one of the things that and actually uh Andy Henry's attorney was one of the presenters on. So, you know, for me it
was both a a learning experience and b I'm going to listen and sure enough the last 15 minutes of the presentation was about Cranberry's affordable housing uh plan. Um, and listening to the challenges that they're going to mount to the plan. Um, and so that opens us up
and you could lose all of the master planning efforts if if there was a successful builder's remedy. So when a town when the governing body is starting to look at the financial feasibility of of you know the totality of the plan and then even the sites themselves and
they're looking at a structure that um from the outside on 1274 in particular on the outside yes it is historically significant. um on the inside it's been modified. It's been um you know the ability to try to do an adaptive reuse on that. You can't get tax credits. The
developer themselves are not going to be something that's going to finance um a conversion of that. Once you start constraining the site with alternative development, specifically residential senior development, your commercial utility of that becomes very limited. And these are all the kinds of
considerations that they're forced to undergo when we come up with the plan that we have. Ideally, we would have found another site and and left that one available for, you know, actual designation efforts. Um, but because of
the short planning window that we had and all of these other, you know, and and they're both practical and then, you know, even you have senior units on there. So even if you start to you know design a site that becomes very very tight um the
issues with senior you know typically you you want just even things like wider sidewalks um you want additional room to maneuver because k turns become more >> um you know problematic when you're dealing with a senior development. So a lot of things while maybe you can in an
ideal world cram everything on the site for lack of a better term there are other considerations when you're trying to do that develop it as a senior site um that you you don't have. So yeah, these conversations were occurring. Um, you know, specifically we weren't
necessarily maybe not running down math and saying, okay, well, if you do this, if you do that, what's the proform on this? But we were having all these kinds of discussions and the consideration, you know, on on site selection and then ultimately um the develop because the other thing that we can we did look at
was does it need to be a 60-unit senior site? What if it's a 30-unit senior site? Then then you know for instance to see to your question you know there you have a lot more fe less infrastructure you have less storm water management less parking less impervious surface area um problem is you can't get a 30 unit senior project funed
>> right >> so yeah and I think you know I've said it here before right it's unfortunate we're up against a million different moving parts and pieces historic preservation is one of them but unfortunately the legality of it the
costs of all of the things that are going on. The requirements of the state, of the plan of affordable housing, led us down a path to where we are today. That this is only one of the what I'll call issues with what we have going on.
And if if I was able to wave a magic wand and create a spot that had 265 units available on Main Street within walking distance to the ice cream place and unicorns and rainbows, I I would
make it tomorrow, right? It it's unfortunate. We're put in a position that we're in. Um and and it it's a it's a struggle. You all have followed all of this, I'm certain, for months now. >> It's a challenging environment. And yes,
this is just yet another challenging piece to a plan that the vast majority of us aren't in love with, but it's where we are. Now, I appreciate this um I appreciate you providing this clarity and this um insight because I mean I
think I I'm pretty sure I can speak from the board that we all approve of having affordable housing. We all are in favor of it. Um I think we have been in the dark as those discussions have been happened. It's been, you know, it's
difficult for a historic commission to find out that, you know, properties we've been working to designate for many years are now being, you know, just put on a chopping block and that, you know, now it's taken like six months. Now we are getting a little bit of clarity. We
appreciate you coming and doing that. Um, and I appreciate you un explaining um the constraints you're under some of these legalities. I mean, we certainly also do not want a builder's remedy. We understand that's not something we want.
Um, and I think I know as chair, I've been tried to be as like, you know, understanding as I can and empathetic to all the different opinions, but I still have always try to approach with you
guys is that we have to keep trying to find a solution that works. Um and that you know we shouldn't give up until the end and ne and never just seed to an affordable housing developer who's you
know we know and you know they're in the business of making money and building cheap housing and getting it done quickly. And that's not necessarily like in line with what our town need wants, you know, um because we have these
beautiful, you know, historic structures in our town. And I mean I and I have to just say as I know we're talking a little bit about the site, the plans were sent to us is that um this property um I have a report that um we were able
to find um has a lot of historic significance. Um it's an example of you know unique architecture that is not you know Victorian era. We don't have many of these in our town. And it's I just want
to make sure everyone understands like including the people who made the rules that this is how it's going to have to be that this is going to be gone and we're never going to be able to get it back. And um and it's a shame that this is how it's happening. And I look at pictures from 19 in this report I can
share it with you from 1992. I look at pictures of the structure. It was actually in worse shape uh than it was today. because it had actually become quite rundown uh when it was designated and I mean I know it wasn't like
officially designated um on the national register it was identified >> but it was identified by the state president preservation office as eligible and listed and acknowledged >> so much that it was you know it's been part of their files and everything um in
that shape it was you know considered historically accurate and it does it makes me sad I think so. So so few things like um I'll pass this around for everybody to see because it makes me want to cry when I when I see these types of things that happen when you have beautiful structures that are going
to get demolished because of silly things like this um and rules um that where people who made the rules weren't thinking about any of this, right? Um, but I guess my question is and and I know we're going to be I guess our each
board has an opportunity to make a comment at the planning board and I mean I think it's just and I've said this to Robert say one more time and I know it's not a legal ethic and I said this is not we understand the legalities like we're we're past the legalities. It's becoming
ethics at this point and it's just raising the Victorian house and putting a parking lot is just the thing that just gets me and like is there any way can we shift it by 90 degrees
like the way the whole rectangle is facing so that or can we like just do you know anything >> and and then use and then we have people
in town who know how we have so many experts. We have people on our own planning board that know how to restore in these types of houses. Um you know, yes, I understand maybe you can only get a few units, but that's fewer units that you would have been building anyway um
in the other structure. You know, how isn't there any other way to save this house? Um, >> yeah, I'd push back on the unethical discussion. I'm not sure. >> It's not because we know it's not a legal thing anymore.
>> Um, it it's again, I'll I'll repeat it. It's unfortunate. It is not in the plan as it stands on a picture. Yes, I understand that that there's a parking lot in that spot, but it's part of the
site plan for a 60 unit development. So that that that that dwelling isn't being replaced by a parking lot per se. It's being replaced by a 60 unit development for affordable housing for seniors. >> Again, >> but people with
>> my magic wand, it wouldn't happen. My magic wand, two, three, four wouldn't happen either. Um it it's it's it's where we are. And yes, it's it's it's it's
less than ideal. And we've said this from jump street. I said this at I think my >> No, I know you I know we've had this back and forth meeting that I that I ever sat in. >> No. >> And I'll repeat my headline in some random newspaper in New Jersey. Right.
This brings us no joy. This is not an argumentative discussion. We're not here to say, "Oh, thank God we're taking down this this building." We're not here to say that. >> We're here to say that the the plan
>> is what a it it's in it's in movement currently. for us to go and alter the plan today is is is not a viable solution in order to protect 4,000 residents of Cranberry, specifically
from a builder's remedy. >> Get that? >> Which is the worst possible thing that would happen to this town from a historical preservation standpoint. >> I would imagine that you guys are all in support of avoiding a builder's remedy
that would unbelievably alter the township of Cranberry. >> And I just said and I said that all the work that we could do >> to avoid said remedy. >> And again, it it's it's a challenge.
It's unfortunate. >> Okay. >> And and I don't I'm I'm not like I'm not here to sort of just stand here and defend the plan. >> No. But uh but one thing that I'd like to get an answer and again and I hate to get to this point because I am not a
site designer and I'm not an an architect or anything right but like and I'm just looking at this as just a person right and who drives down this every every all the time >> like you have little green grassy area here right where the h right in front of
where the house is and then you have where the house is what if you keep the house there, that takes the place of some of the green grassy area because the house will be in front of that parking lot, right? And then instead of
some of the green grassy area back here, you move you use that for the house. >> So, I can see what you're pointing. >> You understand? I know I'm probably sounding like an idiot, but I'm just saying this is as a as a I'm just trying to think through like is there any other
way to adopt the plan? I don't want a builder's remedy. I and believe me, but like we've been asking we've been expressing our concerns about this structure since like April when we found out that this was part of the plan. And then when we saw this on June, we didn't
see this until June 30th, July 1st. And you know, and and I guess you know, it would be very helpful to hear like this if we did this, if we kept the house, here's how we would have it. Here's how
it would block some of the stuff. Here's how much green grassy area we'd lose and here's how many more tax dollars we'd have to pay. You know, is that I mean, we're paying the developer to do this project. like can
they do this little investigation for us just so we understand what it's going to cost us to really I because I feel like we're just talking about so many hypotheticals about um if we were to adjust our plans like it's going to cost us like an exorbitant amount of tax dollars like
>> I I I guess and maybe it would just be maybe I feel like I could sleep a little bit better at night knowing that um if I heard from the developer um company oh yeah we tried maybe it'd work And that would be so far is that you have to ask the
developer because frankly you have a pending application and it's really improper for he and I to sit up here in our pine. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I I never Exactly. That's why >> there are many things that I would like to happen in this environment to help me sleep better. >> I think that's what I'll just do then because Yeah. And that's why and that was the first thing I said to Robert
when we were talking um like you know we were into each other before is like you know we don't want to waste too much of your time. We appreciate you. >> Yeah. No. And I Yeah. to the extent that we can answer like how did we get to this point if you're going to start asking specific development related questions really the developers. >> Yeah, I'll bring we can bring that to
>> do we do we know I'm just looking at this. So this vacant area right behind this property 1274 >> I know nothing about it. >> Is that >> it's part of the hotel right? >> What's that? >> This part of the hotel. Is that right? >> I don't know. It's there's nothing there.
>> Green grass area. >> I think it's part of the lot of a hotel to the side. It's a different law. So that couldn't be taken in the end. >> Yeah, just that's what we want. Just one more condemnation. >> Well, if you're doing it one place, >> the other place
>> I just looking at it and >> I'll just correct. We're not taking >> Well, whatever process you're using >> 1274, the the property owner is has it marketed for sale. So, we >> I understand. >> I'm just looking at what's available around it and seeing if that could be
incorporated. of the property that's around it has has been that nobody has expressed an interest. >> Correct. >> Well, perfect for affordable housing. >> And to to your comment earlier about where we're at, I I mean it is of minimal to no consolation, but this
discussion is happening all over. Um just Princeton, you know, we're the town attorneys in Princeton. Um, and if you drive up 206 as you enter town from Lawrenceville, you know, from the south, uh, all of the green fences, what on what was the former Princeton Theological Seminary, these were the exact same conversations that, uh, we
were having a little bit, you know, that that the developer there was essentially for actually not that the property owner was essentially forced to demolish all of those buildings to forstall any historic claims um, before an application could be filed because they knew of the
immense public interest that would be there I mean, that was the original Huntschool. Um, and and it was easier for the developer, in that case, the property owner to actually seek the demo permits and have it demolished before there was any talk of a development plan. um for that very reason which then
kind of dovetales into today's seminar where some of the top you know eminent domain lawyers in the state were you know part of the panel and certainly in the audience like myself um that we're talking about one of the reasons why that you know they were referencing
today that in the old days there were very little challenges in court to the ability of a municipality to take because if you're going to build a school you're going to build a road everybody knows you can take property for that and there were remarking, why is it that we're getting more challenges? Wait, the municipality
shouldn't have the ability to take for that. And the consensus was it's because as land as a finite resource continues to be developed, there is less and less of it available, which is forcing governmental entities like the township
um to evaluate the ability and and all property owner has to say no. and then we're not constitutionally compliant, which has essentially forced us into a situation, right, where we're looking at, you know, acquiring a farm um from owners that, you know, it's been in the family for for generations. Um,
>> I can assure you the governing body does not want to do it over the property owner's objection. But when we evaluate, you know, a property that's being held by a real estate holding company by, you know, that had the ability to be preserved and
and the owners walked away from it versus constitutional compliance. um were forced to make these very difficult decisions. Cranberry may actually be the case where the New Jersey Supreme Court sits and has to evaluate because once
this is a constitutional obligation, everybody agrees we could take that property to put a road on it. And what people are saying is but you probably don't have the ability to do it for constitutional compliance. Legally, it doesn't comport. And this may be an instance where the Supreme Court is going to have to broaden the doctrine or
evaluate things. The New Jersey Supreme Court loves to look at things in a silo. You can look at it in the educational cases and the added funding um and all these things. You know, you have to produce affordable housing. We don't care what it does to your schools. We don't care what it does to your sewer
infrastructure. The fact that we've identified a potential farm over the objection of the owners, um there's a thought that they may have to start broadening it and looking at things like historic historic preservation is a public purpose. And so now we're evaluating one public purpose
over another public purpose. And so again, very small consolation, but the discussions are at least starting to happen now. Um >> they were I mean, you know, even through the first three rounds, the affordable housing advocates didn't care about
anything about what your number was and how how did you they didn't even care how you met it. It was more important to them to meet. It is only in this round because we're now in the fourth round which is actually I mean the third round was actually two and a half rounds. I mean we should be in about the sixth round right now.
>> Um that's and and I've explained this you know we met with the state cranberry's efforts in rounds one and two were on the west side of Route 130. We did a great job and we maxed out. Third round we were forced to go onto Route 130
>> again. We did a great job and we held that line and now fourth round and what's going to happen in fifth round, sixth round. >> I don't even want to think about >> again, you know, and this is the kind of stuff that Yeah. the governing body gets I mean >> 10 years from now. Yeah. >> I will I will I will just say from an
architectural point of view, this is one of the least creative site plans I've ever seen in my life. I can see many ways right now just doing some overlay sketches of saving the house on South River Road by moving the
units back further on the lot. I don't know if there's a setback requirement that that could easily be waved on a site plan approval. Um you could move the the housing units if you just didn't even change the figur configuration just move them further back. You could save,
you could add another row of parking next to the building, which would also be nice because people now have to cross a lane of traffic to get from their cars to their units. You could add a line of parking. You could then deduct some parking to allow for space for the
house, the existing house to stay, and it would be surrounded by parking and all that. But okay, so what? Um, you'd save the house. You could also do an L-shaped building very easily. take the same plan, make an L-shape, put the common room, the trash room, all the
other things, the elevators in the corner, and do parking that way. There are many ways to s slice and dice this that I could see if somebody had an ounce of creativity to be able to save that house. So, I'll just say that and I don't know who is doing the planning, but
>> well, well, two thoughts on that. Who >> terrible? >> So, even if you say the structure, >> sorry, >> what do you do with it? Who pays for the renovations and upkeep of it? Uh just as one question, >> you could say you could make it the community room and forget about having to build a new community room. You could
make it the the offices and it's not it's trash room and all that. >> It's got to be converted for adaptability because you're essentially putting senior citizens in put a ramp. So it's not it's not that big a deal. >> And again and and I bring all the time it's not that big a deal. >> Correct. We're not you know
great questions that there's no will. So there's, you know, I encourage you to ask those questions. >> I think that we were we don't have Does anyone have any more legal questions? >> I do have a legal question >> and we'll talk more about the our plans for the for the developer discussion.
>> In nine years, the DCA will give Cranberry a new set of numbers and in 10 years we'll be having another conversation about how to build it. Um there are like I think there's probably about 30 site historic sites identified in our master plan more or less. Um if
that they don't have a a local designation if one of those property owners wants to prevent their site from being taken for the next round of affordable housing. Would actual designation protect their historic designation locally protect their site
in the next round? >> I'm going to give you the lawyer answer. It depends. >> Okay. um if if they have a historic farmhouse on a 40 acre site, not going to provide any protection. May protect the structure, but it wouldn't necessarily protect the property. If
it's um you know on a site where you know it's a oneacre site and it's sitting dead center, it very well may it it would really be a sightby-sight analysis on what is the utility of the if the structure were to be preserved. What is the remaining utility of the
site? So, and that's one that that frankly I would I would charge you to look at. >> Certainly couldn't hurt. >> Yeah. >> And and evaluate that because that is the one thing that um you know 30 almost you know 35% of the town is is
preserved. Um that actually once there are impediments to development um a couple of things that occur. one is that you know it >> it goes into the calculations that DCA uses to figure out what the municipal obligation is you know and so that's the
one discussion with some of the farm parcels that that are being looked at had they been designated the Henry farm for instance and I'll just pick on that one only because I know there was contemplation that that should have been preserved or could have been preserved about 10 years or so ago had that
happened DCA has to remove that as one the there's three factors that go into aortioning affordable housing numbers to all of the towns. One of those is what they call land availability factors. If the land is not available for development, TCA has to eliminate that
from the calculations. You can't assign you an obligation that flows out of a land that actually can't be developed. Um so, so it helps in that way. The second thing that would happen is is that you know there are lots of properties and there actually you may
have heard about it um there are restrictions for a property out on George Davidson Road that the developer has approached the town and said we'll just lift the deed restrictions um we're unable to do that. So, um, it's not >> historic. I'm just going to say there's a historic house right there on
property. So, I'm not going to >> Correct. So, so, you know, so preservation. So, if you're talking to property owners that seek um, you know, historic protections and that would then preclude other types of development. That is a way um, for crimp, you know,
the homeowner gets to benefit, historic, you know, the town gets to benefit and then it removes it as a site. Um, and then, you know, it becomes easier representing governing bodies. It becomes easier to designate sites when it's been recommended by the planning board through the master plan process
through HPC through your review and recommendations. And when the property owner says, "I agree with the board and and HPC. Please designate my site," it becomes much easier for a governing body to do that as opposed to, you know, trying to do it over the objection of a
property owner. So, yeah, I would encourage you to to look at those sites and evaluate. I appreciate the 10-year future facing view of this. >> Yeah. >> Yeah, it is. It's cuz I mean going to we're going to be building, you know, things on on in my backyard. I have an
acre. You could fit another three, you know, threetory thing in my backyard at that point. I mean, it's like, >> yeah, I'm wondering what the Yeah, the the cost factor there might not quite work out, but >> I don't know. If you don't have any more land, I mean, what are you going to do? I mean, >> well then there to Kevin's point, if you
don't if you don't have that available land, the requirement goes down. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Yeah. And there there are certain towns in New Jersey who had like singledigit requirements >> because they didn't have the qualifications to require those numbers.
So, is that what we're looking at in 10 years for the next round since we identified during this round four that there's really no other properties available? >> So, for round five, >> I won't speak for Kevin, but they could change the rules. >> Yes,
>> they could change the rules. The other thing of it is is that Cranberry, so we said that there was no other land available. For instance, Alfiri is sitting on, you know, tons of acres, but they're cost prohibitive. The municipality, the t your tax base can't
afford what it costs to acquire property that is sitting there with full approvals that I I mean, I think he's got to pull D permits and that's it. Um, you just financially can't afford that. But DCA looks at that and says that's available for development. If you
provide Khub nanny or Toll Brothers with enough incentives, give them enough density, it's financially feasible for them to make an offer to a warehouse developer, right? >> So, so there are there are adjustments that are available for towns. And so we represent, you know, Hopewell Burough,
Huntington Burough, so for instance, Heightstown Burough. They're what they call vacant land adjustments. Those are towns that are legitimately built out. And so maybe they can take, you know, a single family house and build a duplex, right? Those are towns that you can get an adjustment on. Cranberry,
unfortunately, is this through its comprehensive planning though, it acts like a burrow like that on this side of 130. The problem is the DCA says, "But you have acres and acres of developable land." And it and that's what the
interesting thing part of this whole planning argument against the Henry farm is is that DCA says that's suitable and appropriate for affordable housing as is the Alfiri site because they don't care about the planning aspects. They care about the mathematical calculations.
>> For the first time ever, we're now hearing but why would you put residents out in the warehouse district? When Wayne Whitman was the mayor here, whatever that was 15 years ago, I remember having this very conversation with him and and literally as the mayor, he sat there and going, "Well, this is
what they want, affordable housing in the warehouse district. Fine, we'll have to do it." >> Those words became very prophetic, right? And now all of the affordable housing advocates and all those things are looking at things and it's and it's going to the unavailability of land. And
Cranberry is just this this misnomer that you act like a builtout burrow because we are but from the state's perspective and from just the number perspective there is actually a lot of available land because even when DCA looks at its calculations I mean they
were looking at open space parcels that that have you know and again not as bad in this round but in the third round you know that was storm water management infrastructure for warehouse development. they were looking at aerial photography and going well that's green space that's developing.
>> Um so the only hope is is that we approach fifth round. Not only is Cranberry hitting maximum practical maximum buildout, there are lots of towns that are actually hitting maximum buildout and they're going to
have to re-evaluate the entire doctrine. So again, I'm not going to hold my breath, but there is maybe things change between now and the fifth round. By the same token, I mean, it felt like yesterday that I was sitting here going, if we just get this, we're going to be good for 10 years for
third round of compliance and we're here now. >> Yeah. So >> I make a motion to change our state from the garden state to something else >> because I mean at this point if that's what they interpret buildable land is anything that is like a farm or whatever
you know I mean it's just >> if you can put if you can put square footage on it they consider it buildable. >> Well thank you for coming and your your insights. This has been it's a shame that it's been so late for us to get this insight. I wish we hadn't been able to come along with you guys on this
journey. I think it probably would have stopped a lot of the >> discore, but you know, >> it's been quite a journey. >> Yeah. >> Um, so thank you. >> Yeah. And I app Thank you for having me. If you do have any other questions or you need anything, certainly you can always reach out to me or literally just
pass a message along and we'll get you an answer back. >> Thank you. But yeah, thank you for having me. Yeah, thank you. Very nice meeting everyone. >> Um, so okay, I know non-legal comments. any other comments that we want to bring forward to um when there is that
planning board that's looking at the site plan and the developers there you know questions that we might have >> has a site plan application been made >> other than this concept sketch >> an actual engineered >> they sent it and put it in our folders >> it is oh >> so maybe guy I think it would be
>> I'll take a look at it >> given yeah given your expertise >> I don't know if you want to >> I'd love >> I didn't understand it I'd love It was super detailed. Like it had a lot of gobbly on it, but >> yeah, >> I'm actually quite the
>> some light reading guy. That's what I need. >> All right. >> Need a forklift to get the reading. >> Make a motion for guy to study this. >> This is okay. This is what I do. >> Um Okay. Yeah. And I mean I I like this one because it's Yeah. easier for me to follow. But um
>> I sent it digitally, but yeah, I had one extra hard copy, so I figured I'd bring it down. Um, so maybe yeah, Guy, maybe I I'll follow up with you and I don't know. >> Guy, >> it looks like Christmas for you right now. You look very excited. >> When this uh planning board, when is this meeting?
>> Um, >> exactly next week, the 26th. Any comment by like the 25th. >> All right, >> I'll get it in there. >> Okay, >> I'll try to make it. >> All right, so I'll I'll follow up with you guys later. Um, Bobby, Brendan,
Dave, any other things you would we would want to relay to the planning board about these? >> No. Do you agree with myself and Guy about like >> I like Guy's suggestion. I mean, having >> Guy knows more than I do, but
>> because there are, you know, if you think out of the box a little bit, there's there's got to be other alternate solutions. That's yeah, guy articulated what I was trying to articulate. But as an professional, >> if if you watch any planning board meeting, you see how hard they work to
find a quality creative solution to challenges. And um it doesn't seem like the developer has put forth any effort to find quality creative solutions to saving that structure. I don't know if if it's too late for the planning board to help steer it in a better way now, but it's it's disappointing given the
quality work that the planning board always gets out of these applications. So, >> I will reach out to the TC members who sit on the planning board and have this conversation. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Any other comments?
Okay. All right. Let's move on. We have an application. I will just add a comment that um based on what I'm seeing here that that conceptual plan >> is less than conceptual as it relates to what's actually on the site plan application. So we'll just leave it at
that. This is >> this is worse than that. >> The way it fits on the site, but anyway, we'll leave it at that. >> Okay. All right. So, we will have a followup. Um okay. Next, let's do an application.
Um, we have an application from Bunker Hill Drive. >> This is Amy's. >> This is the one. Um, >> she's not here, so we can talk about her while she's not here, >> but she discussed it last week. >> She brought it up and if you guys
remember, this was where she had the home with the with this porch. She didn't know what to do with it. She tried to figure out She's trying to figure out if it's what's the right historic way of dealing with the porch. >> Yes. And we figured out that the porch
was actually not really part of the original plan of the house. And so we kind of gave her the option of, [Music] you know, removing it. Uh but >> Yeah. >> But wasn't it this this um vestibule?
>> Exactly. It's like a vestibule. Exactly. >> And it was discussed that an option I think Sue brought up that be creative if you wanted to make it that removable >> warmer months and put it up in the winter months that would be acceptable.
I mean it's not looking at it. It's a structure but it's not a huge structure that's added to the porch as the porch is being u built. And so she um >> she said she can go either way with it. >> She said she could go either way.
>> The commission discussion was either way. >> So either way. And so did she end up deciding So she ended up deciding to remove >> or she's still not deciding. >> Okay. >> I mean on the agenda it says removable
box storm entry. >> Yeah. >> Is that correct? just put it as like she's really going for the option to do that if they choose to do it. So, >> and I think that's what was discussed at last meeting and it seemed like everybody was in agreement
>> whichever way she wanted to go. >> Yeah, I think that she was leaning it sounded like she was leaning toward removing it because of functionality. >> Well, what she says in here is we want to ask permission and approval to remove the boxed entryway should we decide to do so. We've not made we've not made
decision yet. but need too soon. >> So, could we approve it? >> I would >> with the option at some point in the future if she wanted to >> replace it, >> put this like a just a winter season
vestibule in. She could put it in or put it back. >> Yeah. I mean, I think >> like it is, you know, similar to what it looks like now if she saved it. I don't know. I think she said they took it off and I think she said they saved the
pieces of it. >> Yeah. >> Personally, I have no problem with removing it. I think >> either way, >> the original home was did not have it, >> right? >> I think the porch is much more functional without it. So, if she wants
to remove it, it's okay with me. >> Yeah, I feel the same way. So, I So, here's what we do. Let's um We don't need to vote on it. I'll just I think I could I could just approve it whatever she decides, right? As a chair.
>> Yeah. I mean, everyone else seems good with it, too. >> Do we do we need to vote? Like >> I mean, we're here. We could make a motion. >> We could just make the motion simple and say she can do whichever way she want. >> Okay. So, I make a motion that she can do what? Either remove or retain.
>> Okay. Perfect. All right. Yeah. Um, roll call. Uh, Miss Sutmire. >> Yes. Mr. Guyer, >> yes. >> Mr. Hull, >> yes. >> Miss Marlo, >> yes. >> And Mr. Savo, >> yes. >> Okay, thank you. Motion passed.
>> Okay. >> All right. Next, we have minor and ordinary maintenance repair and approvals. >> Okay. Um, so there was a couple. The one in the middle is not technically approved yet. I accidentally highlighted that. But um 40 Station Road, they had
kind of a barn at the back of their driveway and the back of that roof, they replaced it. Um 57 North Main Street is the old Leo Sushi. They're kind of we're working through the design of the sign,
so that's in progress. And then 28 North Main Street, they were just replacing the decking with the same decking on the front porch. and sing railings, too. >> So, actually, can I bring up the Mexican restaurant then? >> Okay. So,
>> so we had a little brewhaha with this um application because, um, so it's the Leo Sushi Restaurant. Um, and now it's going to become a Mexican restaurant. I'm so excited. >> That's better. >> Yeah. And so, um, this is this is like a
little deja vu. Um, so you know, it's vinyl, right? The Leo Sushi sign. And so the owner, the the renter of the of the property um decided to make their sign on the back of on the other side of the
Leo Sushi sign and they went and paid their vendor to do it already. So remember that other application where we had that happen before where they came and showed up and they were like, "Yeah, we already did it. So can you approve it?" >> And they lit it up and it doesn't show
through from the other side. I don't know about that. I don't know anything about that >> because it was back lit. It's a backlit sign. >> That's a good question to ask them. I mean, I guess >> so. They didn't take the lettering off the >> You'd see Leo Leo backwards. >> So, the fusion basically I approved the
design of it because it looks fine the way they did it. It's a good It's a good sign. But I had I flagged the the vinyl and zone and I think it was zoning also flagged the vinyl. But then what we found, but then because the owner was like, "Well, I already paid the person
to do it." I mean, you know, so so then we ended up going back to the code, which is that I guess technically it's grandfathered because it's still using the existing sign.
So I'm in a place where I feel like fine, you know, I don't want to I'm a business owner. I don't want to like they're they have enough expenses. They're starting a business and this was not their um this was a mistake. They're they're the owner of the building should
have communicated to them that there's a sign ordinance and that they needed to >> we've had this before whatever. Right. >> And that's unfortunate that the landlord doesn't do that. >> I knew you would be like you you be heated over this, right? But that's why we spent time with the sign ordinance revision and everything
>> and we had specifically mentioned when a landlord is renting retail space >> they I we think have an obligation to explain to their tenant >> this is what you need to do >> and that application that we approved back then was like a nos that was like
this is our last one we're going to allow for this I didn't know this was supposed to happen thing to happen so but I'm in a bad place because I'm first of all I'm perfectly so excited excited about having a Mexican restaurant in our town and >> but it's really the >> Can we see what the sign looks like when
it's >> it looks great. >> I think the sign. >> How is it going to look when it's lit up? Then that might cause >> Well, if you're saying they just flipped it over. So what what was on the front is now going to be the back. >> So when you light it up, I think the
>> lettering from the back is going to go through. >> I don't think so. No. Maybe they didn't light it up. >> Well, maybe that was just them. >> That's what it was. >> Just like the windows, you couldn't tell if anybody was in there.
>> So much better when it was multi. >> It was It was It was lit up >> prior when it was >> What was it? >> Hotlock. But even >> No, it was multiple >> before that. multi.
>> It was lit up. Yes. >> Yeah. >> Well, that could have been the problem, but that's >> Anyway, >> so we can bring that up to them like, "Hey, have you tried lightening it up yet?" And >> but if there's a problem with it and it it doesn't follow the ordinance or, you
know, requirements. I mean, to me, that's the cost of doing business that they have to have it redone. But it technically I think that I mean I sent a note back again to the zoning officer because like what does he didn't answer or she didn't totally answer my question when I asked
>> I'll read I'll read it. Yeah I I made a screenshot. >> Typically a pre-existing non-conforming sign can be refaced. Okay. So I think this is considered reaced >> but it's got to the lettering and everything has to conform to the built
enlarged etc. When the proposed change to the existing sign is only the replacement of the insert, I would not feel comfortable requiring them to remove and rebuild the entire box. However, if they choose to remove and rebuild it the box, then they have to,
you know, then it's a modification. >> Well, wait, that's two separate things. That's the confusing. >> The box with the light in it, that's existing. That's grandfathered. So, now you're just talking about >> the sign face that fits into that box. It's considered refacing. I think this
is the problem. >> What I don't like about this whole situation is that we're the historical committee and we are making decision about we're allowing someone to reface vinyl and making us approve it. I hate that. I feel like that's um >> Well, does the design fit the signage
guidelines as far as >> Yeah, the sign fits the guidelines. >> Yeah. So, I guess I guess I'm approving it because it fits the guidelines of refacing, but I'm, you know, as a historical person, I'm I'm only really appro I
mean, I'm I'm just complying with the signage guidelines. But here's what I was going to say to you guys. Like, so we'll deal with that. That's I think that we might end up having this, right? But here's what I'm thinking you guys. I I'm really thinking of of of printing
out that sign ordinance and I'm going to go I want to hand it out to every landlord who has a non-compliant sign. So like that realer office, the one that has the vinyl >> remix. Yeah, the RE/MAX and the and then
anywhere that we could have this happen again. I feel like we just need to go and do another mailing campaign of >> But it really has to be on top stay on top of new businesses coming in so you get them right at the get-go. >> Exactly. But >> I don't know the existing ones are going to say
>> so we don't find out about it. >> These people are not new in town. >> No, they're not. I know. >> They should be aware. But they're not because >> they have other priorities like making really awesome Mexican food. So, you know, it's they're not gonna they're not
going to study the township website. What >> what's the sign look like? Is it >> It's cute. >> It's like um Yeah. Oh, you have it? >> Yeah. >> It's >> Oh, by the way, Cranberry in has their new sign up. >> Yeah. It's an overlay on top of the wood
on >> It's on both sides, I think. >> Yeah, it's cute. >> I mean, >> I think it's on both. >> You could see it if you were coming from >> I'll have to take another look. I thought it was on both sides. >> It's okay. >> It got sent back because at first there
was too many colors. I think the zoning officer let them know. >> Oh, you got it. Got sent back. >> Too many colors. >> Not bad. It's okay. >> It's cute. It's fine. It's clear. It's easier to see, I feel like, than the other the sushi was.
>> Well, that was all faded out. >> Yeah. >> There it is right there. >> So, I don't know how they're going to use that. Maybe they're not going to backlight it and they're just using the >> Yeah. >> face.
>> Just use the frame. >> Yeah. Okay. >> So, I feel like again >> I don't know. So, okay. So, I'm I'm gonna like I'm going to be like, you know, approving it. Um, but I I I do
think um maybe we take if you guys see if you remember that where we have the other ones like I say I can work with Gina to do a >> resend out the signage ordinance and say, "Yeah, we're not going to allow for like the um the vinyl, you know, because
we didn't know, you know, >> like >> Yeah. Yeah. Okay. All right. Cool. Uh >> oh, I had one other thing. Um I did want to mention the whole cranberry pizza area. The it came back to the
development review committee. Uh it's not ready to go back to the planning board yet, but they did kind of have like an application for the development review committee and they um I believe took into account like any comments you had about knocking down the two back
buildings being okay. And so there's plans on the website if you look at the DRC um committee section. >> Are they coming back to us for any reason? >> They have to >> not like I think it sounded like planning encouraged. I I watched the or
the DRC I watch media and it sounds like it was encouraged that because when we we yes we gave verbal >> the designs changed a little bit. the design change and also we've never we as a commission have never looked at the uh the plans for the two new residential buildings in the back because that
wasn't part of the concept review that we did with them. So I would come back to us >> come back >> but we had to we did a letter to say to tell the planning board though that we were we approved it um the concept in our concept review like back three years
ago when we looked at but sounds like things have >> but now things have changed so we'll look at it again. >> I think you should look at it again. >> Yeah. Yeah, for sure. >> Because that was just a concept that we had them. So, you know, >> and the two back buildings were not part of it. >> Yeah.
>> Okay. Um All right. Next. Um amendments to the Cranberry Historic Village District. Oh my god, we're going to be here forever. It's already 8:23. Okay. This is our working session, y'all. >> Not if we don't want to be. >> Okay. So, okay.
Where do we begin? Um, okay. So, oh man, so Okay. All right. So, the first thing is um
you guys saw this document that says revising the design guidelines in chapter 93. Okay. So this document is basically an introduction that Brendan crafted and it conveys what had been asked of us which is that we are
revising our design guidelines in chapter 93 to distinguish the difference between contributing and non-contributing. And what that results in is
one section that the first part that shows non-contributing and contributing and then the addition which is F on page 27
is additional stuff that covers contributing. Okay. So Brendan and I had a working session yesterday and um we made some comments which are
not did not print out um and Dave made comments which didn't print out but you guys should have seen them in the packet. >> No, these I think these are my comments. >> How did you get a red one? You got one with red. Mine doesn't have red.
>> Mine doesn't have red. This is This is I printed this out from the packet. >> Yeah. Yeah. Oh, because you printed out the red. Okay. >> When I >> And then Gina's printed like this. >> Just read
them. >> Oh, man. >> Just read them. >> So, I can go through. >> Let's go through. Okay. But here's the before we get to the changes here for the red. There were other changes Dave that you had me you had put in and um
they address the chapters before we get to um >> before we get to this area. So before we hit 937 so n chapter 93 sections one through six. Yeah. Exactly. >> Okay.
>> So here's the thing. We talked about this. If we implement those or address those, it's going to create it could potentially create another confusion situation. >> Well, there's more. I looked at it again
>> today. >> So, there there there's a couple of things I added. I took another look at it. So the historic buffer area initially was to remove that section because we're eliminating the buffer
area, but with standalone historic sites, >> we do want a buffer area. >> Exactly. And so that's what Brennan and I discussed. So actually, we went through all of the comments. I hate to say this to sounds so bad, but like we went through all the comments that you made in sections one through six, and we
were like, are these worth it? like if we put these in, is it going to majorly improve things? >> Well, yeah. >> And we weren't sure because we weren't sure if it was if it if it actually could create more confusion,
>> but you want to make it clear. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Or is it going to add more confusion by clarif trying to clar clarify? Are you going to add more confusion? >> Well, specifically 93 like one through six not part of the design guidelines, right? Um, just for this task, we are
asking the TC as part of the at the same time as the designation to make changes to the design guidelines. >> Any other things that we identify in chapter 93 that aren't part of the design guidelines that could be improved, I think we're better off making smaller asks so that way we're
not asking them to review all of chapter 93 and have changes that don't have to do with contributing and non-contributing design guidelines and things like that and to change as little as possible. So that way it's an easier thing for them to review. >> Okay. But what I came up with this afternoon when I was reading it again.
Yeah. >> And there's other areas that uh 8, let's see, that's uh C 935 C8 mentions a historic buffer area. So, it
appears in a couple of places, but the one one thing that came out and it's more administratively, and I think it refers to you, Gina, because you're the administrative officer, which I don't think Bobby, I don't remember we've ever had, the administrator officer goes
around and checks on these applications as they're getting done to verify that uh it's getting done according to what's been approved and then it gets turned turned over to the zoning officer who I found out just last week that only
works part-time like Friday evenings 5 to 7 and Saturdays 10 to 12. So how does he serve notification to people that they're in non-compliance or is it even being enforced and it's in here? Um, and even down to how we vote at the
beginning of the year on the chair, vice chair, and the administrative officer. In here, it says the mayor is supposed to appoint the administrative officer. >> Okay. So, >> we don't even follow the >> Well, I feel like we Okay, so here's the
thing. I'm not sure about this whole mayor appointing the administrative officer thing, but the for the first part you were mentioned. I feel like we actually still followed it because like okay, think about that window application where >> we had we had a meeting and we were
supposed to do the windows a certain way and then the windows got done and someone in the neighborhood queued or teed off the administrative officer that it wasn't done the way it was supposed to be done. and then that that person
got a violation from zoning. So in a way it really happened. >> But that but this the way this is written >> Gina's responsibility would be go follow the application as it gets done. >> Yeah. >> Completed and verify that it's it's it's done
>> according to what's been approved. >> Yeah. >> And that I don't think has ever been unless it's been pointed out specifically. >> Yeah. She well she acts upon I don't know. It sounds like we need to soften it maybe because >> that's that's either it's in there or we >> we you know
we we leave it in there but it's not being enfor you you know how much I love code and ordinances and all that stuff. So I'm all in favor of like tightening up anything. I just don't want it as part of this smaller targeted package to go with it as
>> I understand. I'm just bringing this up. That's what I I found there bunch of that. >> It's just going to get in the way larger objectives. >> Could we do it in in phases? Could we do the rest of chapter 93 once we get this main part done? We do this other review
of chapter 93 and like let's do it for next year. >> Okay. >> When I'm not in charge. >> And the other key piece is like synthetic material versus composite material. So synthe synthetic to me is like vinyl. Yeah. >> Versus composite wood is is a different
material. Um, >> and so that needs to be consistent throughout the the document because >> we talked about that a lot because um wait so what we ended up doing as Brennan and I went through it is we
started wondering like you know how um you know because we we thought about like the feedback we had received about making sure we're super specific about things and what we realized is that some of that the this chapter 93 is meant to be the
guide, but then how it gets interpreted and is called out in the brochure that we have. And so the brochure is actually the thing that translates chapter 93,
>> right? And that's where, excuse me, so that's where some simple things which I pointed out which is in red which wasn't showing up for everybody. There's some key pieces and the way it's presented is is is different. A lot of areas it gives
specific examples of what's allowed or recommended to do, but like fences, it just says what's not appropriate. And I think there should be some listing of what some appropriate fencing guidelines for
the historic district. >> And yeah, we looked at that. And then in F, section F, um you go through garages and walkways, but there's nothing about driveways. >> Yeah. >> Which is totally missing. >> And give some examples of what would be
a permitted >> driveway material design >> to to so people could could handle that. Exterior materials again, Hardy board, uh, which we've approved many times, um,
as an acceptable, uh, composite material. Um, >> and would that be included within the definitions of synthetic? >> Well, this in this section, exterior materials, >> um, there's nothing
it doesn't really say, >> right? Um, so I think give an example of what is acceptable or what could be acceptable. >> But one question I would have is like do we have to put that in chapter 93 or can we put it in the brochure?
>> Well, 93 has synthetic >> where we define what synthetic is. >> Yeah, synthetic I think gives the wrong >> say substitute sighting. >> Yeah. Which is usually composite, right? >> And give some examples. >> Yes. You could also say that vinyl
sighting, aluminum siding, and other synthetic materials are not acceptable. >> I think the closest that chapter 93 comes to addressing those specifics right now, if we're looking at E1B synthetic siding, number three,
>> when the use of synthetic sighting is permitted, the material should match the historic material that is characteristic of the district in size, shape, scale, texture, and color. And so that is like the principle of it should match the
characteristic material in the district without specifying this matches, this doesn't match, this doesn't. And so it does allow us the flexibility as new materials come online that do an even better job of matching the historic
materials and with better situation forced to approve something. Well, that's where you don't put like hardy hardy. >> That's why you don't specify you put composite sighting. >> No, we shouldn't be using >> which that evolves
>> over time. >> So, we want to say instead of synthetic, we want to say composite. >> Well, except I don't know that we should because there are some synthetic materials that aren't composits per se, but still can emulate the uh historic
materials. Well, trim boards would be that siding. I don't I don't think there's anything composite is what's available for like clouds. >> So, should we use the what what Oh, I know one question we have. could be
substitute sighting and and trim too because >> you know what is it >> ASAC right we >> substitute doesn't >> right >> so we would call the section substitute
siding and then we would keep it where it would say synthetic sighting may be used on new structures >> see that synthetic word I think is I don't like synthetic because >> substitute >> syn synthetic just means it was synthesized in a factory instead of from
a tree. >> Well, we know what we don't want people to use. Can't we just say that? >> We um >> vinyl and >> vinyl and aluminum. That's number four. >> Yeah, I think that's number four. I think we're all in alignment that >> Okay.
Except that when we're talking about something like a that could be >> well that's PVC. >> Yeah. Um right. But so what we call vinyl p is what we're talking about is like the thin two um coarse sidings that
>> fall apart and don't have the right depth and don't have the right texture and don't so it's not the material per se vinyl because it's in the polyvinyl chloride. It's that the way that it was synthesized into a siding that isn't
that doesn't match the characteristic of the district. So, >> should we say plastic or shiny? But remember we did this training last year or maybe it was earlier this year and it was like two or three hours uh of >> it's really hard to say whether
something is it's it's like it really depends and it depends on how it reflects the light and it reflects on >> and so to try to say that vinyl the material itself is never going to reflect it because as in the case of
trim it can can reflect it. I imagine >> people could look at Well, the vinyl has wood graining looks like that. >> Yeah, I know. >> I know. That's like that's >> But the way it's put together on a
structure with the with the corner board, I mean, it doesn't have the same and the and the and the J channels around the window frames and stuff. just doesn't you can't construct vinyl sighting in any shape or form to look like it would it's wood.
>> What if we call it natural versus non-natural natural natural wood and then if we say non natural non >> well that's the composite >> natural and then we just say that we need to have we need to approve it on a
case-bycase basis due to the changing technologies. >> Yeah, I'm reading I didn't go back to the Department of Interior because they do approve like the Hardy Plank now composite. I have to see where the wording is in that.
>> Yeah. And that was so that was interesting because um Brendan and I were looking around. We were looking into um treatment of solar panels. We were looking around to see like, you know, we found how Princeton does it. We looked at secretary of the
interior guidelines of solar panels. We found the language that we should probably use >> because that's what we reference >> and it's it's and and Bren and Brendan found as well that it syncs up exactly with what our town actually was already saying. >> So they use synthetic.
>> No, they were talking about I'm talking about solar panels. >> Solar panels. Okay. Um, so maybe I think what we need to do is go back and look at some other town ordinances, their chapter 93s and see what they're saying because I think it sounds like we are
not so happy. Did you guy when you talked to like the architects did they have any feedback or guidance for us on what they were think hoping we would say or do remember when we had those interviews? >> Yes. No. Yeah.
I don't think any of them were supporting the use of vinyl or aluminum or other things. They were all being very responsible. >> But what about synthetic? like were they where did they >> you know I'm I'm looking at I'm looking
at language in Prince George's County Maryland historic and it's um I mean actually goes on quite a bit about replacement of the use of modern synthetic and
composition materials may on occasion be considered to be compatible blah blah blah blah blah modern synthetic and composition exterior materials if compatible in appearance form dimen ion and texture may simulate historic building practices and may cons may be considered appropriate but only on a
case-byase basis. However, vinyl and aluminum siding will not be allowed. >> You said that to me. >> Yeah, >> I think >> so. I think that along that line is >> and then specifically I'm just looking at um
>> and sorry just vinyl sighting those two words together mean like that's a very specific thing. The way they wrote that was good. >> So they further define synthetic or what? Synthetic. >> Exactly. Yeah. >> But under >> also talks about fencing. I'll just send
you this whole. >> Yes. And I think I think that maybe and especially since it's 9:40 and we still have to talk about like cranberry day and everything. Um >> I think we need to keep working on this. I don't think we're ready to finish. I
know we're trying to make our deadlines, but like um this is too important. I think and maybe Brendan we need to have another meeting another working session offline >> cranberry and >> could we >> at least hear some of the other
priorities to address right now from from the rest of the commission and then we can work better. >> Okay. Um, did you want to >> I probably uh do we have a list guy? Do we have a list
of the recommendations from the architect's meeting or >> Oh, >> should we put them should we build a list right now of what came out of that? >> Um, >> I think it's in the Didn't Sue say >> they were notes that Sue put together? I
think >> they weren't very They weren't >> I'd have to go back and look. We might have to go back to that other meeting and see. >> I didn't know in the meeting minutes there was some listed out. I'm not sure if it was totally all of them, but >> was a good um Yeah.
>> Okay. So, we might need to do a little I looking back at the Sue's notes. Okay. Um what else, Brendan? anything from this is like we we Jen you and I can work offline but like let's
let's hear now what we should be working on. Um, one thing, okay, for fences, I think what we we are we all in agreement um there we found some language that we
could use um that was done in Westfield and Westfield was their guidelines are very similar to ours and but they were updated in 2020 and so they have things that they say for example um well we
already said historic fences and cranberry are most often wooden such as p picket fences but may include rot or cast iron fences. This is all language though this is in the in the brochure not in the chapter 93
>> the the ordinance or the document I just sent you from Prince George's does address fencing as well. >> Okay. >> So I think it could be I'll read it. The use of traditional fencing materials is always preferred within an environmental setting or for enclosure of agricultural
or equestrian spaces. Repairs to these existing or historic features should employ traditional compatible materials and techniques when fencing is newly installed. Modern synthetic or composition fencing may simulate historic building materials and may be considered to be compatible with the architectural and historic character of
the historic site and historic resource or an historic district when similar in color, texture, dimensions, height and spacing. However, vinyl fencing will not be allowed. >> Are these their design guidelines brochure or is that actual chapter 93 orders? >> Well, there this is policy number
one-05. The use okay of synthetic or composition sighting fencing and windows. They also talk about windows. >> Okay. >> So, it's I mean that we don't have to copy it chapter and verse, but I think it's a pretty good place to start.
>> Okay. Um, okay. Fences. We talked about streets. Uh, uh, driveways. Um, we did some research. I did some research on driveways. And we, Cranberry addresses driveways in
our streetscape section. And that's and so we don't have a separate section on driveways. And when Westfield updated theirs, they didn't call out driveways either. They folded it within the streetscape.
And I guess a question for you guys is, do we need to add something? Do we have a point of view? So, yeah, Brendan and I spent a lot of time talking about this. We were like, why is it that they don't have a section on driveways, right? Or
should we fold it into this the areas of walkways? But so you have section on walkways which is part of the streetscape >> and driveways are part of the streetscape. >> Yeah. >> But it's not singled out like specifically
some design guidelines for driveways. >> So like the language says for example for walkways retain historic walkway materials and reset when necessary. Are we gonna could we find ourselves um
pigeon holing ourselves in the future if we create these stronger guidelines quite frankly though around driveways because like so far we've been approving driveways >> where people are flipping around and they're building new ones they're
>> you know changing things >> it's limited because I have one that you need to look at, but it's it's it's between two houses. It's there's nowhere for it to go, but it's visible from the street. >> Mhm. >> Um, and I'm looking at walkways, and
it's very specific that decorative concrete pavers that simulate brick and stone shall not be permitted. >> So, you could say the same thing should be saying the same thing for driveways. >> So, we feel comfortable with folding driveways into the same criteria as walkways.
>> It's visible. It's part of the streetscape. So, >> okay. >> It's pretty straightforward. >> I just want to make sure because I just don't want us to find ourselves um >> in a place we haven't had a point of view. >> I'm not sure. I I I think it was very deliberately left out when they wrote
this. I mean, I'm sure they didn't overlook it when this chapter was originally written and I think they must have had a discussion that led them to decide not to be as prescriptive for driveways as they were for walkways. >> So, driveways have to go through HPC. And like when you think of like all the
times that we've looked at these applications, have we ever had driveway debacles or like has HPC had like a long-term perspective on driveways? >> I don't remember having to
debate with somebody on a driveway. I I mean I know that we prefer them to be gravel or something like that as opposed to black top. Yeah. But I don't think anybody's ever committed challenges on
that. I mean if they had an existing laptop driving >> Yep. Right. Things are grandfathered in. But but if it's if somebody's doing rearranging their backyard and putting in a garage, we want want it to be a gravel driveway and we don't want gravel
driveways replaced with that discussion. >> Oh, okay. >> We're going to have to we're going to have to >> probably create a separate item paragraph whatever for driveways. Yeah, because right now we say >> the same as walkways,
>> blue stone, slate, brick, and concrete are all appropriate for new walkways in public view. So if we say that for driveways, that's a problem. >> You might want a brick driveway. >> Yeah, >> but what if you want asphalt for a new driveway? It's not listed.
>> Well, that's more of a modern material. >> Yeah, >> I'll give my driveway as an example because there's an application I put in for maintenance. So, it's a concrete driveway, 67 years old, but cracked, uneven. So, I want a proposal to take
that out. And it's just from the sidewalk to the gate across the drive. It's 50 ft in. And there's more driveway behind me. I'm not touching that. And I want to replace that with two brick tire tracks >> running bond with a grass center stripe.
>> Yeah. Yeah. >> So it's less so it's less, you know, impervious to water. So >> so >> more natural >> and that looks older >> environmental looks older. >> And there's a number of driveways like that in town. >> Yeah.
>> You know, versus taking it out and putting concrete back in >> or paving it over with asphalt. >> Well, that wasn't for me personally that would not be much. >> But do we really want to take away those options from people? I'm really hesitant to like
>> but you could say that use of black top or asphalt driveways is discou highly discouraged. >> There's a lot of a lot of properties that have >> if you have one you can get that
>> maintenance grandfathered in. Why couldn't I mean I'm thinking of new construction that was built in in the village and much of that was built with asphalt driveways and I think it's fine >> if it's appropriate really for the area
that the house has been >> and if they have one now they're allowed to take to improve it and they can overlay it with with asphalt. >> What about the new driveway we just approved for the you know the house on park place in the corner? Wasn't that asphalt that they were doing? But there
they created a new driveway >> which asphalt >> which have >> there was a couple we've done. One was at the corner, you know, on a park place in Maplewood. Weren't they doing some like a new driveway in the back or something? Or maybe I'm confused.
>> There was the Red Rock driveway on North Main Street not too long ago, but that's fine. >> On North Main Street, that one, the yellow house, right? That was that was asphalt, right? or I don't know what it was. >> I think it's a white house. Um but the
one I'm thinking of, but the red gravel. But I think we if we're gonna if we're going to limit things like I think it's worth picking up anything that we should clarify that may have been confusing.
Um, but at this as part of this, unless unless we feel really strongly that the flexibility that has been afforded in the past has been a problem, I don't know that we should take away that flexibility for people. >> How about if you just say the driveway
should be appropriate to when the house was built? In other words, if you had a house that was built in the 50s, happens to be within the historic district, you don't expect changes or improvements to it to to make it look like an old historic house. I mean, it should it should maintain it
the character of when it was built and it should be building material. It should use the building materials when it was built in the style. Well, the same would be true of drive. >> Yeah, I don't think it's restrictive, Brandon. I think we see in certain areas they give specific examples of what's
appropriate and what's not appropriate and driveways are just left hanging. So if we build these guidelines, so a homeowner in the historic district wants to change out their driveway, right? In the document, there's some guidelines to
give them some he or she some thought on what would be appropriate. And then >> that should be in the brochure then I think. >> Well, somewhere it's not it's >> not in the code about what we're allowed to approve and >> but you have it for like walkways, >> right? And again I
>> and that's visible from the street. It's part of the streetscape. Driveways come out to the street. >> So I don't think they I think they deliberately left out driveways. I don't think they forgot about driveways when they wrote the wall. >> I wonder why. >> I don't know. But unless we go to >> if if it something comes through and we
have to review it what we just discussed that's what's going to happen in the discussion like well there was an asphalt there before so we're not going to allow asphalt because it's not appropriate if there was asphalt okay you can do it
>> right >> happens to historic district material to be used for a driveway at that doesn't mean you can't put >> I mean you could say something very generic just that driveways should use
materials consistent with the historic context >> just give some guideline >> just to say you know you got to think about this you can't just >> that's what >> I'm fine with that >> okay you are >> I'm fine with should should what how did you >> I said driveways should utilize
materials consistent with uh the buildings historic >> because I looked at it as >> historic context. >> I looked at as if I was doing an application. I wanted some guidance on I'm looking for there's nothing but driveways. >> Most of most of the the building or most
of the sites are going to be dirt driveways because the median age is 1855 and they didn't >> but we're not asking them to go back to when the house was built. It's what's appropriate as it's evolved over the
years. They talked about like a porch. If a front porch was added in the early 20th century, it should stay because it's part of the history of the houseund plus years later. >> I I thought you were saying like appropriate to the context of the district or something and like that.
>> That's fine. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Because the district has evolved, >> right? >> No house on Main Street looked looks like it was when it was built. It's been added on to porches. Are we all in agreement that
>> the porches have been taken off? >> My house didn't have a porch on it when it was first built >> his director. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. It's Are there any Can anyone identify a material used in the district
today that we feel is inappropriate for the district? >> Neon. >> I'm just kidding. I guess I you know black top would be the only one that I would say but I know there are plenty examples that there are black >> Yeah. >> I think I think what we don't like is
like someone taking a historic um driveway material and replacing it with asphalt. >> That's what we don't want people to do, right? Like if you have old >> there's gravel driveways and I think they should be allowed if they wanted to
if they can go through the you know the zoning and planning whatever that in terms of you know permeable run >> there is some hard they can substitute for that >> I don't know that we should disallow asphalt I mean our roads are asphalt they didn't used to be asphalt but main street is asphalt
>> but if yeah and if someone's creating a brand new driveway they'll want asphalt right people who are creating a brand new driveway are going to want so I think I I I think we might be able to because we say with walkways we say retain historic walkway ma walkway
materials and reset when necessary. I think that language applies for driveways. But then we need to we need to deviate a little bit from the walkways section because they say because they start talking about um
using you know they don't Yeah. >> I think we need to create our own section as you well but maybe we use the walkway section as a guide and we're going to have to >> see if walkways were singled out on how we want to >> walkways are singled out driveways are
not and to the point of what was there when I mean then side You when you take a sidewalk out, you should put wooden planks in because that's what sidewalks were that way back when. There was no concrete sidewalks. Main Street was >> you could change the paragraph to say
walkways and side walkways and driveways and then just include a line in there that addresses driveways >> because you still don't want decor decorative concrete pavers that stimulate says stimulate stimulate brick and stone. You don't want those
permitted. So, if you just inserted one sentence in there, the driveway is sh. >> Okay, I think we might need to draft up some options and we're okay and spend some time reflecting on this, but I
think we're getting closer. This is this is important, you guys. Um, okay. Landscape. Um, do we have any do we have any point of views on landscape? We have not talked a
lot much about landscaping. We've had language in our brochure and chapter 93. Um it's very it doesn't even really say much about landscaping. We have stuff called out in the brochure about it.
>> Landscaping is probably very um >> I don't think you can, >> you know, free. I don't think guidelines. >> We have a whole set in the brochure on it. I think we can give guidelines in a brochure, but I don't think we could put them in.
>> It's going to be tough to >> Okay. >> Um, >> okay. >> Species. >> Um, any other things like what about we want to make any adjustments to what we talk about with windows because I know
that's another area where we have um we've had a lot of we have Windows applications. Um, do we think that anything needs to be adjusted? >> That's a that's a tough one. Um, if you anybody has gone past the American Hotel
with the new windows in front, I they just look smaller than >> really >> what we asked them to do. So, >> but that's the name of the game. Windows. That's >> unless we're going to say that, you
know, we're not going to allow vinyl or other types of windows and wood has to be replaced with wood. >> Well, we asked it just agreed to do that. If you take a >> I understand, but I'm just right now we haven't done that across the board. >> Right.
>> Just just another we mentioned color in here. >> That's that isn't something that ordinarily we >> we never did color. We never we never regulated color before but in a number of these things there's something and color I'm just exterior materials
relationships of solids wood and color that's a big change. >> Which uh number are you >> she's looking at page 30 of 30 like section E13 talks about keeping color compatible of the storefront.
So, so your question is like should we strike and mention color >> places where where color is mentioned. Let's >> see where else do we mention color. >> If you mention color I think you have to have this list of approved colors then.
>> Yeah. >> Well, we have color covered in the um brochure but it's very much cleared. It's very much I was I double checked it. It's very much guidance for people who are asking. It's not required and it's not
in chapter 93, >> but it Oh, here's where it says color as well. It says on page 27 of 30, when use of synthetic sighting is permit is permitted the material to match the historic material that is characteristic of the district in size, shape, scale,
texture, and color. Yeah, >> we might have to strike color >> or even in the top you know in two places in that uh on that page. >> Oh yeah, I see it. Synthetic sighting in color.
>> The only place that color is mentioned I wouldn't remove for sure would be in mortar. >> Oh well that's that's that's >> match colors. It's matching not only the color but the that can the substance whatever whatever you call whatever it's
made out of the material >> garages we mentioned color I see it Bobby >> yes additions should be designed to be compound in terms of mass relationship to voids and color >> color
It's a good catch. >> Opening up a can. So, we get some blue houses on Main Street. >> Well, there already are strange colors. >> Well, the rumor for years was if you had an old house, it had to be white. >> That's slowly changing, but
>> Well, that's nothing that's not very historic. >> No. And even even then when they talk about not stripping the paint off the side the side of the house >> years ago people only could afford to paint the front of the house. Interesting. >> I went I had a seminar a number of years
ago and they they said most most homes they just painted the front facade. >> The side and the back were left natural and as wood rotted they just replaced it. M. Mhm. >> Did we say for u masonry we were going
to keep the mention though of color? >> Yes. Should >> Okay. >> Yeah. Because it >> because if you talk about brick, brick has different colors. >> Yeah. It's not just the color. It's the >> color and texture. >> Texture. I guess
>> uh shutters. Yeah, we have to cut it out of the shutters. Color out of the shutters section. >> I see it in there. and the roof. >> I see it in the roof as well. >> Shutters. So, we say that the placement
shutters shall be wooden to cover the entire window and close >> roofs might be appropriate in the same way that masonry is appropriate. And because I think when we say we don't dictate colors, I think what we're saying is we don't dictate paint colors,
right? And so uh in terms of roofing materials, it's typically not painted. And so therefore, I think it's less of a paint color thing and more of a material color thing. >> Yeah. Here you would want to leave it the exterior color and texture of masonry walls. >> Oh, never mind. >> We maintain.
So, we're we're keeping it under roofs >> and we're keeping it under masonry. And what about shutters? Are we going to strike it from shutters? No, we have to strike it from shutters. We people can paint their color shutters >> in the same way that siding I think is
siding is only we're only talking about painted siding, right? >> Yeah. >> Okay. >> Siding. Wait. So yeah, siding we got rid of. Okay. Wait. Cuting garages. >> The shutter paragraph is a little bit
unclear. At first we said use of synthetic materials for shutters is oh except when the use of synthetic materials is specifically peritted elsewhere. Why? Where do we permit it elsewhere? >> And we have permitted some synthetic
shutters. We've had some. >> So okay. Well, let's just leave it because it then says when the use of synthetic materials for match the original size. >> That's fine. >> So, we just we'll strike out color >> color.
Okay. Um, and we will I think we're going to add we'll add a section on um solar panels. And Brandon and I we looked and we found a place to put it. I can't remember where we figured it out though.
It was >> roofs. >> Would that be appropriate for roofs? >> It should be somewhere. Um, >> he's on 28 to 30. >> Yeah,
>> seven cuz you're talking about roof additions in D. So, roof edition of solar panels. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. To fit in >> solar panel language. And yeah, we had found some good language. Princeton had good good language that was very It was
a it was a good interpretation of um Secretary of Interior. Um and basically our our our point of view on solar panels is that you we don't we we don't want them to be in the streetscape
>> and we don't want them to impact the you know historical um part of a roof for example. Um, but they could be permitted on the backside of a property and in a backyard and even freestanding in a backyard on the ground or on an
ancillary structure in the backyard. Those are all places where you can do it. Um, and that's how other people are and kind of allowing other people to do >> panels and be green and stuff like that. So, >> and that specific technology has to
constantly be relooked at >> because eventually what we hear hasn't fully been put out there yet, but like roof shingles, >> individual solar panels tied together and it looks like shingles. I mean, that's what it's going to evolve to
>> eventually there. I don't like >> So, it becomes sort of a non-issue >> potentially. Yeah. because it's probably look like slate. >> They're a little >> But they're not shiny. >> They're a little shiny right now. >> They'll get better.
>> Okay. Um, so as far as next steps go, any other comments? I think what we need to do next, tell me if you agree, Brandon, because you've been so impact like critical in this, is
we're going to take this feedback in. We're gonna do another round. I think we're gonna rec reconnect with Dave as well since he's also been looking at it closely. We can Can three of us meet at the forum as a as a working session? No. Two two. Okay. So, it might be that like
Brendan and I work and then maybe Brendan and you work. We'll figure out some way to make it so it's not a meeting. >> Um and then >> from there, I think we have to probably take one more look at it as a group. I think I think we're going to be behind
by another month because I think we need to look at it one more time. Would you agree? >> Should we um that did anything do do we know more about having it reviewed by the zoning committee? >> Oh yeah, that was the other thing I was thinking also at the same time we can
submit it into zoning. So because because from what it sounded like they had some a point of view and so I think I'd like to take this like do another round send it over to Wayne to uh Wayne and have his zoning persons who have a
point of view have them look at it. I don't think we should have to bring this through to a meeting. I think that's going to be really painful unless they want us to bring it to a meet. I I don't know. I don't know. I think I need to discuss this with
Wayne and see because I just this is a this is >> Yeah, >> I think if you revise it people who don't want >> and then pass the revisions around because >> that's what I'm saying like I'm going to see if we can do this as an onlineus. >> I feel like this is difficult because you know you have to really look at this
and study this and um and think it through. And so if we were to just put it in front of some zoning people in a meeting and they have five minutes to review it and then they show up like they're going to just it's just gonna it's going to be a problem. I don't think that's an efficient way of looking at >> and possibly the revisions maybe
highlight them. >> Yeah. >> So they can focus right on what what's changing what's not changing they don't have to worry about. >> That's a good idea. Maybe we just make sure we we can when we articulate this we show kind of how it's changed which is we're kind of already doing here. I think that by simplifying it and
focusing on this little area, these two areas, um hopefully will help it make it make it really clear. Um okay, good. >> Okay. All right. Next,
moving through. Okay. Our um Okay. The CLG grant that didn't get approved. We all know. Yeah. >> So my suggestion for that it was very complex >> because of the different types of
properties we were sort of putting together and the one thing that the state pointed out was the two we only got two different costs. Yeah. >> Yeah. Quite different. >> I think that was the reason they wanted. >> So I just I again
looking at that and what we have I think for the for next year. Yeah, >> my personal uh opinion would be to go and get a grant to formally survey the properties that we've we're adding to the historic
district to tighten that up >> just to keep it simple >> because that's what we've done before and get a good quote or a couple of quotes. There might be some other vendors that might be willing to quote on that. Uh, in the meantime, maybe have a conversation
with RGB Associates to get some ideas because Sue and I had seen a um, COD uh, seminar webinar about different types of surveys that you you
can do. And so farmland or rural areas instead of focusing in on individual sites, you can do it as a farm the farm community, the families that live there, how the some farms are inter related or whatever in addition to getting the
whatever pictures you can. >> That would be se that would be a separate one maybe the following year. Um in and after our discussion tonight, Brendan, you brought up about we might have an opportunity for some
the uh farm owners of histo far historic farm farm houses to protect their property. They might be interested in getting this historic designation which I think in the past they really didn't want to
>> go after. Yeah, >> that's it's funny because when we were having that discussion, I wrote down here in my notes, I wrote, can we create like a farmland historic district or >> be individual individually designated? >> It has to be individual.
>> It has to be >> Yes. The secretary that Yes. The guidelines for a district, it has to be it. It's very difficult to have a non-ontiguous district. It has to be if they're not if it's not contiguous, there needs to be some reason in which
they were related in the past, but they've now become separated and being farms in the same area. I don't Yeah, they're going to have to be individual. >> But maybe maybe if it's not a technical historic district, maybe it's like to
your point with working with RGB to create some sort of a making it comprehensive story >> or a comprehensive. >> There's a couple of different ideas. theme >> theme exactly >> farming families they mentioned what's the commonality how the farms
>> contributed to the development >> of the historic village district >> yeah so it's like it's not a technical district but it's like a it's a it's a >> supporting role >> maybe one that's still in still functioning >> yes is a fine consistent
>> okay so do you think that will if we if we make It's smaller. Um the amount the number of properties for next year's CLG grant application. >> It's not smaller. It's the same type. So if we do the additions to the village historic district
>> Oh. So doing both of them for his for for CLG both. >> No. Do one for 2026. >> Do the additions to the historic village historic district. >> Yeah. >> 2027. come up with a some idea of how we want to
uh get the history farm >> farm story of cranberries. >> Are we sure that if is if if we just do the historic district for 2026, is that enough work though >> for them >> for pursu to get a >> Yeah, it may not be the 50,000, but I
think my guess is we'll may get another another one or two vendors that might be interested. >> Ah, okay. I think now that looking at it, we put so much together >> and the farms were not disparit. >> Yeah. >> You know, they could see that how are we
going to do individual uh surveys of these properties >> and I think that's where the difference rate difference was in the quote. >> Okay. >> And we only got the two quotes. >> Yeah. And so we >> which is telling that people didn't want it business.
>> So we bit off more than we could chew. It's good learning, you know. Cool. >> The letter mentions that they received applications uh totaling 398,000 and they distributed 121,000. Are >> those and that seems are those two are
those typical for previous years or are these is this >> we never got a letter like this. I don't know. You know, we it was accepted. >> Okay. >> But we don't know how much they've distributed in the past to compare against >> like we came to cranberry every year. Let's just let them sweat it out. I
mean, if if the whole state, they're only distributing 121,000. >> That's pretty low. >> That is low. >> Gota believe that they were cut back this year. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. >> Okay. >> All right. Good. Um Okay. I don't have
any updates on the Hamlet. Um COE. Um Revolution New Jersey. Bobby, I know we >> um just just the one program that's coming up. >> Yep. >> Whispers from the grave. >> Yep. um public outreach. Um
I don't have any updates on anything other than um I guess we have cranberry day. Um so Sue had um put together a list of some cool ideas for cranberry day for our booth.
And we have to oh we have to schedule our um figure out who's going to be able to be who's going to be able to work cranberry. Can I have my own booth? >> Okay, so Brendan, you can. Yay. Guy, are you gonna be here?
>> Yay. Okay, Sue, hopefully. Dave, are you gonna be >> out? Okay. And Jen, >> okay, so four of us. Oh, and Amy. >> Amy said yes. Okay, >> good. >> All right, I will um send a note to the
five of us. We'll schedule um time slots. Um, okay. So, did you guys see Sue's list of >> Oh, I know. I have it. I have it printed out right here. >> So, really nice. Like, um, she put
thought into like how we can do this fun sort of matching game with photos. Um, and so she thought of like the clock tower, the weather vein, the stained glass window in the church, the portico um, at the Brennan's,
the portier on the Silver's mansion, the water fountain at Cranberry Lake, the fancy door by Bobby's. >> What's that? >> The knocker. >> The knocker. the entry porch at the Brainard
Institute, the twotory porch at the American Hotel, the Crow, and then the funeral home window. >> Sounds good. So, what's the idea that it'd be photos?
>> People are going to try to figure out. >> People will try to figure out where they're from, >> where they are. >> Yeah. My only my only thought was what if you just kept it at 10 like a nice even number matching >> could do 10 if she runs into trouble
getting pictures together >> if she needs she has trouble. >> Okay. I think this is great. I mean I love that it's creative. It's fun. It's going to be interactive. Um, >> she asks for suggestions for how the
game should be formatted. I think that there should be a closeup of the feature and a wide angle of the building it's from. >> And so that way you're trying to match it rather than dig it out of your memory what it is or where it is or anything
like that. I think that could make it more accessible for the because we had a lot of kids come by the table last year. >> I remember that. >> So that that could be a game they could do. Okay. How about that? >> Sounds good. >> I brought the buttons, too. I don't know
if anyone wants to see them. >> Oh, yeah. >> They're going to be great. >> Since I had them, I figured >> I love that. That's so cute. >> I love you, Siri Cranberry. It's
perfect. Um, good. So, we've got our giveaways. Um, and I think as we get a a couple little bit closer, we'll the days before we'll work on putting together some, you know,
materials to give out like some of our um I mean, I have the banner somewhere, I think, still in my garage somewhere. I don't know, but somebody in town asked me why
commission would consider having things on Facebook. >> Oh, doing a Facebook page. >> Yeah. And this that would be an appropriate place to say this is what we're going to be having at our table cranberry day. stop by and see the stop
by and you know get a list of the things you want to find in cranberry and identify that give you ideas. >> You said some of the other um commissions were considering doing that >> really or maybe doing like um a flyer
that just says um and putting it on like do we have a town web page cranberry town Facebook or >> oh Jesus you know what never mind I retract that comment about that question >> like who's going to manage that? >> Oh, dear God. And the promise um
>> we have the the township web. >> I retract that question. >> That's available. >> Um I know I >> we could post stuff on all about >> Gina. The doc the document we just signed had something about social media.
Did it have anything to do with official social media? I mean >> how to do anything. >> Yeah, I don't know that anyone else has one. I don't know. I mean, it talks about personal blogging
and social networking, but I don't know if there's something specific to and as a commission. We could put an announcement in the mayor's email that we're gonna have at the
>> mayor's she lists stuff coming in. >> Lisa, she's put stuff in before. >> Yeah, we're >> previous mayors. >> Okay, cool. Um Oh, and we have a student um the uh
Emily Young who applied um is has accepted. >> So, she's excited and she couldn't come today, but she's starting in September. Yeah, >> great. >> Okay, you guys, home stretch. Um, commission training. Any updates? Excuse me.
No updates. Okay. New homeowner letters. >> No new homeowner letters for this month. >> Minutes. Dave, >> he wasn't there. >> I viewed that long meeting, but this was longer. >> Oh my god, you guys. I'm so sorry. But
at least we weren't waiting twice this month. You know, we got all this done in one meeting, which is good. >> Gina, on the bottom, the last sentence in page four, it talks about historic sites located in the master plan, but that should be identified in the master plan. >> Okay,
>> lessons of page four. And then on page five, um, it says that I suggested adding a link to the National Park Services technical bulletins page. and it implies that I suggested adding it to the flyer, but um
that was in response to the discussion about what should be on our website. So, if you move it to the next paragraph, I think that would put it in better context. >> Okay. >> And really, I I I heard the comments last meeting about my edits to the to
the meeting minutes. And typically, my what I do is I'm quoted in here. That's what I look at >> to make sure >> I'm quoted correctly. And I think if everybody does that for their own >> and then and we're we're we're done. I
mean that's >> and grammar. I mean that's if I come across something >> so good. It's just you know what you're going to say you're just so good. >> But I don't usually correct other people unless it's grammar is >> that's what I'm saying. Well, that's that's a >> but the information what Brendan just uh
pointed out he stated something he wants to clarify and that's what you know to make sure in the official meeting minutes it's it's what you meant to say. >> Exactly. >> So if everybody did that if they're quoted in the meeting minutes then >> it makes it very I mean I I have to admit I do I really just look at my
stuff >> but it is Yeah. So I think if yeah if we all do that we're we're good. So, can I make a motion to accept the minutes? >> I think we should second. >> Okay.
>> Roll call for the July 15th minutes. Miss Sutmire, >> yes. >> Mr. Guyer, >> yes. >> Mr. Hull, >> yes. >> Miss Marlo, >> yes. >> Thank you. Motion passed. Okay. Uh, public comment. We don't have any no comments. Okay. Uh, no discussion.
No, we've discussed everything. I make a motion to adjurnn, you guys. Good job. >> Second. >> Second. >> Yeah. You know, we're still shorter than the planning meetings. The planning board meetings go longer than us still. True. >> So,