relax. Okay. Hi. Good evening everybody. Like to call the order of the community for Monday, December 8th. If you're willing, please rise and pledge also. [clears throat] Okay, we're going to move on to open public meetings notice. Pursuant to the open public meetings act, notice that
this meeting was sent to Crimbury Press, Trenton Times, and Home News Tribune on January 3rd, 2025. Post on Time's website and sent to those who requested a copy of this notice. We'll move on to roll call. Mr. Christopher >> here, >> Mrs. Obadali here, >> Dr. Rogers >> here. >> Mr. Scott was absent at the moment. And
Mayor Con >> here. >> Thank you. Okay. I'm going to start off our agenda with a a very very special uh recognition this evening. Um we have a resolution um if I could get a motion um to read that uh
resolution. >> Second move on to roll call first. Okay. >> Mr. Christopher, >> yes. >> Mrs. Overdaw, yes. >> Dr. Rogers, yes. Mr. Scott is absent. Mayor, >> yes. >> Thank you. Go away. This is a recognition honoring um
Kirsty. Uh and I'd very much like a moment to be willing to uh read uh read this uh resolution [snorts] >> before I just I just want to bottom my heart. You've been someone I've watched as an example [clears throat] for very
many years. and to find out that um you've been doing this for 20 years as a volunteer which means that you've been really dedicated to a job that you found reward in that wasn't anything other than the reward of the people in the community that gave you the positive vibes as a result of what you did. Thank
you so very much for your 20 years and although these words capture some of what you've done and some of the the love that this community feels for you, it certainly is not. So without further ado, whereas Kirsty has faithfully served on
the Cranberry Public Library Board of Trustees for 20 years, providing steady leadership, thoughtful governance, and unwavering dedication to the library's mission to inspire lifelong learning, foster community engagement, and ensure equitable access to information. And
whereas Kirsty's love of libraries and her desire to give the town of Cranberry its very own freestanding library building was the impetus behind her longerving membership in the Cranberry Public Library Board of Trustees. And whereas Kirsty was the founding director
of the Cranberry Public Library Foundation set up in 2009 to raise funds for the new building and which eventually went on to raise over $2 million in donations for the new public library. And whereas Kirsty worked
tirelessly from 2008 through 2017 to support the new library building effort through a feasibility phase [laughter] and the fundraising campaign. Kirsty served as a leader in the campaign, a steadfast advocate for the project, and a champion to the passage of the New
Jersey Library Construction Bond Act of 2017 that led to Cranberry securing a matching grant in 2020 that led to the construction of the new building. And whereas Kirsty worked in
the fatigue >> that's a library [laughter] >> towards that goal by urging the board to conduct all the necessary steps to achieve a new building including a needs assessment survey feasibility study selection of the architect and
development of an architectural plan. And whereas Kirsty led the board and library director through the process of obtaining bids, selecting a contractor in managing the construction of the new library building. And whereas Kirsty had the honor of cutting the ribbon at the
completion of the project building. And whereas Kirsty continues to champion the Cranberry Public Libraryies vision, advocating for inclusive programs, strong collections, innovative services, and community partnerships that meet the evolving
needs of Cranberry residents. And now therefore be it resolved that we the township committee of the township of cranberry do hereby recognize and honor Kirsty Gazi for her 20 years of exemplary service on the cranberry primary public library board of trustees
her individual contributions to the creation of the freestanding library building and her ongoing support for the library's mission certification. >> Congratulations have a seat.
>> Yes, sit down. >> Yeah, this other one was just out of the way. I live at 18 drive. Thank you very much. But I think as as you know this was all I love libraries
and I was I just feel very lucky where I was able to be on the library board but it's really we we've come through so much because we had great people on the board. We have that vision. We have great staff
directors library staff but then also [snorts] advocates in town and donors and people who just love the library. So I'm so glad we
very fortunate for me to be serving at this time to Mike Ferante North. So, uh, so we heard from Kirsty. That was all the the facts of the case, but I want to give some color commentary. So,
um, so I I first met Kirsty in 2010 when I was elected to the school board and I was on I was the library board and I love libraries and I I got to the first meeting and I heard Kirsty telling this audacious vision of building a freestanding public library and um this
if if persistence is a word personified is your stupid answer. So this she never gave up there from the beginning from a feasibility study all the way through to the getting the state legislature signing the construction bond act. All
of that was sort of a big effort. But I think Kirsty would be the first to acknowledge she stands on the shoulder of giants in this case not the donors and the members but um her family. So, um, we're very lucky to have Miss Jenny Swanigan here this evening. And Jenny
was a long-term library employee and a long-term library trustee. So, Kirsty definitely continues that tradition. Um, Kirsty grew up in Cranberry. Her sister Leanne. Um, we have her husband Paul here tonight and her three kids, Jane, Albert, and Sam that I know were a big
part of supporting her. So, um, [clears throat] I'll keep it short, but I just I just want to say, you know, thank you for your persistence. You had the gold and the tenacity for a 20 for a 15-year period to make this happen. We
would, I'm confidently say we would not have a free public library if it were. So, thank you very much. Brooka, director, Cranberry Public Library. I just want to say thank you to Kirsty. She has been >> Wait, hit the right button again. Sorry.
There you go. >> Director of the Cranberry Public Library. I just want to say thank you to Kirsty. She has been a guiding light on the board of trustees and I admire her passion and dedication to the community so much. Um, thank you Kirsty and I hope
you do be proud. And everyone here, come back to the library [laughter] >> former director of the library and I live 102 main street. Always wonderful working with you. It it was being a director with her um serving
on the board was wonderful because she just had so many ideas and so much enthusiasm. It was easy to work with and we got a lot done together. We did so much together. was really special and uh we said we would both stick out um
through co when it was really tough because we both had each other and uh that was a really tough period but it got us out of the school and into the new space during that time. So, it was really positive and thank you so much
for being such a wonderful president to work with and I do remember um Jenny Swaning with my children coming to story time. I have pictures of you with my my kids of story time. So, it's wonderful to have both of them here tonight.
I'm Andre Mento. at one Chamberlain court and I have had the privilege of working with Kirsty on the board where Mike I think 15 or 20 years right you and I remember going with Mike and all of us door to door knocking to raise money for the library and with Kirsty's
leadership and Marilyn is our our director during that period meeting for the architects we had a dream and Kirsty fulfilled that dream and thanks to her mother also who was a spearhead in the community for the library. Uh Kirsty, I
just want to say thank you and it has been my privilege to have her. Thank you. resolution that the public indulge is just one quick one quick pause of our meeting. Okay,
we'll use [laughter] >> [laughter] >> years. [laughter] I guess I can say Um, we didn't get our piece. I know we said [laughter] the resolution, but um,
it's just been it's your demeanor, your quiet demeanor does not reflect your doggy person. Is that a good description? [laughter] And uh, thank you and thank you all the entire board for uh, having the vision
and actually implementing it. And thank you for having making a space for my husband to go puzzle [laughter] and it's a we love going here. >> I just want to add I I think the library
at its core and its concept was what you envisioned, but I think what it's turned out to be is so much more. uh an anchor for the community um a place for our seniors to really find a home um and and
be comfortable going there and it's become such a place for community events and for people it's just it's become more than I think you originally envisioned it to be which I imagine is incredibly gratifying so I would be proud you have a freestanding library but I would think of it in the concept
of it's it's such a bigger part and an asset to our community. >> Libraries, public libraries are always >> seeing how that is serving our channel and it's evolving just
>> happy birthday. [laughter] We we could put you on the spot, but we just got through um Percy's um resolution and just that. So, we're just wrapping up. If anyone had any any final
words, so I feel uh you definitely know how I feel about you and your service. It's definitely well earned and much appreciated. Thank you. Thank you. >> Um, we do have an addition to our agenda
this evening. We're going to move our consent resolutions up uh to be item number seven on our agenda. >> Whatever you want to do. Okay, we're going to move it up to after
your mic's off. >> Your mic's off. >> My mic's off. [laughter] >> Can we get a [singing] motion to approve the regular meeting minutes from November the 24th? >> So moved.
Can I get a second? >> Move on to roll call. Mr. Christopher. >> Yes. >> Mrs. Eladawi. Yes. >> Dr. Rogers. >> Yes. >> Mr. Scott. >> Mayor Coner. >> Yes. >> For one of detention. Thank you. >> We'll move on to reports from our
committee members. Anyone in particular like to start with volunteers? I'll dive in because my uh committees and have not met since we last met. But I did want to just quick shout out um promote shift who has his
last board of ed meeting next week on the 17th I believe after 13 years on the school board. I just figured I'd give him a quick shout out. Anybody who wants to come to the board of ed meeting as well as the TC meeting tonight, feel free to join. Uh but a 13-year career uh
on the board bed is is quite an accomplishment. >> Uh I unfortunately did not attend the park, but I contact them. A couple things. One, uh their survey should be going out soon. Um they sent back to us. We went over it. So there will be a
townwide survey uh for everyone to respond to. Um, uh, basically just trying to get a pulse on the town and and see what what people like about activities in the town, what they like going on with our parks, what they, you know, might potentially like to see
going forward in the future. Um, and um, we'll be sending out Has it been sent out yet or no? No. Okay. Um, so that'll be sent out through um, email blast and you know, it's really just again a way
to kind of get a a broadcast pulse um and get input from from uh from the electorate on, you know, what they might like to see going forward, what they don't like. Um really just kind of get a general feel for how people feel about certain things. You know, because we've
had projects in the past where we've parks has pursued them and we've talked about them, but really never get a lot of input from the town until it's kind of too late. So this is a way to sort of get ahead of that and to have a more proactive relationship with the elector
get input on things that they'd like to see done. Um in addition thank you mod she point out there's a dock in Village Park which really you can't call a dock. It's really just a
collection of rotting timbers that uh sort of roots of liability and courts violations. Um sorry. >> Yeah, like that. Um so yeah, I know. So we uh at the next park meeting we'll we'll discuss that. Hopefully we can
place that next year. So all I wanted to start just by wishing everybody happy Thanksgiving. Um, we did have some news, a little bit of sad news from our senior community. I don't want you to mention it.
We had one of our longtime primary residents and volunteers with the seniors passed away and she was a mainstay within the the group. She volunteered all the time making sure people were feeling welcomed in that senior um lunch
group especially. She had she had her clipboard and she go from table to table. So my condolences our condolences to the family. on a formal um level, the planning board met. I attended the meeting and at that meeting we um the members of the
planning board received sort of the proposed updated checklists that were given to all members and the zoning committee has been working on that all year headed by American and we will the planning board members of that planning board will look at that
document with more detail and I believe the TC will also have the ability to um to app future meetings. Um and there was a resolution that we were supposed to pass that day for Amazon regarding the change to the parking lot but I think
the resolution was not prepared um ahead of time and so we didn't have time for us all to take a look at it. So that was deferred to a following meeting. So [laughter] that is what I have to report on here. Uh, two things. Um, first one, Lisa and
I attended a centennial birthday party for Beatatric Miller at the Elms and was blast. It was especially the piano player. I mean, that was really great. And seeing Beatric, she wasn't officially she was 99 and almost 100.
So, we [laughter] did a couple of weeks early, but it was really nice. Um the one thing that um another you know besides meeting the family and seeing all the residents there that seem really positive and happy um uh I do want to reach out to the community that um they
are taking opportunities if you want to volunteer to to um anyone that wants to volunteer to put in hours um they should contact the elms because they would love um you know entertainment of some sort or going in with a tablet and you know
doing puzzles with them or whatever. So, I'm just putting that word out there and I've talked to some of the high school students and I think Cloud9 might be going over there. So, um it's a it's a great opportunity get more of a community feel in there. Um so, I didn't want [laughter] to I wasn't sure if you
were imagining. Um the other good news is um after I don't know how long, but we're going to finally get a flashing light uh put in on Old Road by Milstone Park. Um not sure the eth and the nth being put in the poles and the poles are
going to be put in the >> yeah the foundation once that's >> so um you know the traffic subcommittee has been really working on safety on old road by winding old road people think that it's no longer 35 miles an hour
it's like a raceway so we're trying to put in more safety measures like the pipe the pipe um the pipe path is trying to narrow it um and then it's flashing light the death um so those are two
things that we are working on >> um >> hey Barb do do you know if the elms reach out to the high school >> excuse me >> if the elms reach out to the high schools for volunteers because I know lots of kids need volunteer hours mine includ So if you have a contact, let me know
and I'll let Deress know. She's the community outreach person. >> Perfect. I'll reach out. >> Yeah. >> And it was also like we're encouraging like even if like some members of the band wanted to go and like play music and entertainment. So like they can get creative in how they're volunteering.
It's not so much just go there and sit down. it's like come there and maybe you know engage with them and have an activity or you know something like that. So it's a little bit more engaging which is great. Um in addition to the for the planning board in addition to the guidelines just a little bit more
about that process. So it's the design guidelines it's a checklist and that I just want to thank the members of that zoning subcommittee because they've really dedicated a lot of time. It's been every two weeks for over six months just going through them.
The whole idea is that so that the applicants are more prepared and these applications are more robust so that planning meetings first of all don't take four hours or five hours but that they can move through and get to some of the challenges quicker. So the planning
board will review that and then we'll probably have a special meeting with the planning board late January and we'll also distribute that. The goal would be then any changes that we have to make um you know based on that and the TC will be able to review that too. Okay. Um
just an update on some of the road work in town. Shadow Oaks has been put on hold due to the uh decreasing temperatures in the air. The good news is all the great work and the curbing work that needed to be done on both sides of Shadow Oaks was complete and
then the north side of Shadow Oaks that paving has been complete. So, it was actually the timing of the weather changing actually worked out quite well. Um, but I've been very very pleased with um how outspoken residents have been even the smallest of problem in the
neighborhood. They sent me an email and I just want to thank our township engineer and our township administrator Denise just for being on it because we were able to resolve problems really really quickly for the residents um through that process. So, um and they just seem to appreciate that. So that's
what's going on with Shadow Oaks. And I really did have a blast with the Elms. Uh Beatric's birthday is December 23rd. So the her family being there committed to a three-w weekek birthday celebration. They also [laughter] and we were informed of two impending
March birthdays that they'll be turning 100. So we've got more celebrations to have over there. And they've done a really nice uh redo um within Elms. really looks very nice in there and their flooring and their decor and a little bit of a remodel. So, it's a
really nice place to to go. So, spread that word. Okay, that's really all I have. Um update on my department head. I'm not used to Good evening. I sent out
someone's right on >> Can you do me a favor? Yeah. Could you speak up a little? We had just um some at home people are having difficulty [clears throat] hearing, so we're all going No problem. >> Thank you. >> Yep. So, motor vehicle crashes unfortunately are on the uptick a little
bit. November was pretty compared to last year. Um partial numbers in cost of service again that's relatively
new dispatching statistics but you can see this time uh last year to this time there's over 3,000 additional calls um for the year. Yeah. So we've been very busy was very busy month for us.
Um again total radio um transmissions recorded just from Granberry alone was over 10,000 dispatch interactions was over 55,000 and I don't want to call over 1500
[clears throat] overtime is down so we'll just leave it at that um >> and then technical bureau on par again for the NAS. We just did reported last year and nothing
outstanding there. Nothing that swings. I do want to touch on the I'll take any questions that you have. I do want to touch on um police bling that we had policeing information. Number one, it's a criminal investigation. We release what we can
release and it's not something you're in. Hey, was just barjacking. Just please be aware of it. So, it's not something you do. Um the um there's an individual that brought a high-end car to one of our local businesses with the intentions of
possibly selling it. Um and the short uh story is that suspects approached him, branded the firearm, stuck it in his chest. So, is it hard? 100%. is still under investigation. It is part been recovered. We have processed it, swabbed
it for DNA. We will continue the case where we are any information if and when we can release it. We will just so police department was not hiding anything. Again, it's just part of a criminal investigation that we just, you know, announced to everybody on his
head. Uh but the car hasn't been recovered. Um and as will be released tomorrow. So we're moving with that. I mean you can see I did send a note to everyone an email. There's been a little bit of an uptick in PUIs. It's very common at this time of year. I know there was some
concern whether we should announce it. The state is very aware of it. There are proactive um shifts going everywhere um throughout the state of New Jersey. It's always the southern season. So between Thanksgiving and Christmas,
uh you know, um unfortunately that part of our job is uh busier. Um but however, I will point out that um I think we had seven or eight arrests last month and we had over 26 this month and December has just picked a gear right
behind. So um again, we expect those kind of numbers. It's nothing. It's not my 27th year here. Um I can go back and look at those months back. So um I would like also to acknowledge our talent engineer. Um I will put it
out there that uh for some time um I have been trying to uh address safety concerns specifically with cutouts. Um there's only so much we can do because they are it is a state road. The state owns the road. Um, and we cannot u
enforce those wonderful signs that say no returns. We're not enforcing. Um, we're the one that we're talking about that I'm speaking about is Halfacre Road um just prior to it. There's a cut out there and then there's two new developments there and we have residents that are coming the wrong side of the
highway um against traffic to go through there. Now, that we can enforce and we do enforce. What I [clears throat] can enforce is that 55 miles an hour is the highway. It'd be wonderful if they did 55. However, and then they come to a complete stop to make a U-turn and go back on the other side of the highway.
And we're having an uptick on crashes. We've had a fatal there. Um, this is something that we've discussed with the personal subcommittee. Um, and we just met resistance not on our part, but the state's part. By the grace of God, Tom was able to do what he was able to do, put us in contact with somebody, and my
understanding is it will be closed, and I believe the state's even going to pay for it. So from a traffic safety standpoint, you know, it's a home run all the way around. So I reached out to him and the last ditch effort because I continued I apologize I continued to try to get this done. Um he's like I got a
new contact there. Um see what could happen and you know I had to write a letter. I had to do a couple things on my part but it was done and they approved it. So I'm very grateful that's going to happen soon. It will mitigate many many crashes there. >> That's great news. >> Yeah. I think I speak for the residents
of those two communities even if some of them are guilty of the majority not have been fearful of that intersection for a long time. >> Um so I [laughter] think it's terrific. So thank you. Y that's all I have anyone has questions
or deer time there accidents with deer that you know >> now that you brought it up um down it's two years in a row that they've been down >> [laughter] [laughter] >> Thank you. Just curious and I just
people be be careful out there. >> Actually, last night. [laughter] >> Okay. I like the use of language that the deer hit me. My mother taught me that language for [laughter] insurance purposes. I didn't dear
>> microphone. >> Yeah. For negotiate November and because it's near and dear, we have an officer struggling with that as we speak. So, >> anything else? >> Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> Okay. As discussed before, we're going to move the consent resolutions up uh in the agenda to item number nine. Um, can I get a motion to consent resolutions or would anybody like any of the consent
resolutions pulled out? >> I'll second. >> Thank you. We'll move on to roll call. Mr. Christopher, >> yes. >> Mrs. Elidawi, >> yes. >> Dr. Rogers, yes. >> Mr. Scott, yes. >> Mayor Kir, >> yes. >> Unanimous. Thank you.
Do we have any followup items last? We had a meeting with um dentist and architect and Tom Decker to discuss why um the hot was installed prior to the
things that Tom had asked be done and then how we work instead of we make it look better and so but I don't think they came back to us >> no the and this is exactly how I think
the confusion happen to start with the the installation and the the actual like pad where it all lies is completely separate discussion from the aesthetics intermingled. Um so it is what it is at this point. The pad is the pad. We're
going to work in the future to fix the aesthetics that there's going to be potentially planters and a wrap and particular colors etc. Um but more to come on >> I will share with you one of the resoubil
>> sounds I don't think so >> I don't believe so [laughter] >> yeah I'm I'm not aware of any sounds that it makes but I'll keep my ears There you go. >> See what I did there? >> Happy birthday.
>> Thank you. >> That was for you. >> I did have a follow to the date that theora would be um put up um and that um we were trying to schedule um and he
will be in attendance for the uh lighting of a candle on the 21st. So I'll add that to the mayor's update. We didn't have that exact date last. >> Yeah. You know what? Um I know this is kind of out of order, but I would just like to mention the tree lighting was
phenomenal. And thank you for the tree and our fire department opening their doors for crafts and fun and I didn't think scouts did their first flag ceremony ever and very [laughter] very
well. which was adorable. >> It was adorable. And the tree light was okay. Okay. Um commission's vacancy. Same three as last time. the EC environmental
commission as a second alter alternate, the zoning board as a second alternate and municipal alliance as a second alternate. Okay, we have no first readings this evening. Uh we do have a [laughter]
second reading uh this evening. Um so I need a make sure I get this right. Motion, a motion and a second. Make a motion for
a second. >> Just so I have the sequence in events. >> Second hearing. >> Yeah. To open to open our public hearing. >> Okay. just opening it up. So, I just want to
kind of start out um this discussion um by providing kind of a timeline of what we're here to talk about tonight and kind of the process and procedure. So, I want to start just so everyone knows what we're what we're talking about is
the property located on 147 Plainsboro Road and there is a history of ownership of the property. So just for the public benefit um and also we let everybody know that there was a on the township website that
there was a section there you could click on that all the documentation and everything that the township has received uh to date was on there so that the public could become familiar with the issue educate themselves on the issue and then come here prepared um
with any public comment that you have. So, the Cranberry Township purchased the property from the Barkley Trust um in October of 2002 and in 2004 um the sale of the development rights to
SADC farmland preservation deed um yeah um we expected um that did not come. So the township uh actually executed that deed
in August of 2007. West Orange Baby purchased the property from Cranberry Township and the historic preservation Eastman Indeed. I won't read you the number if anyone needs it, but uh on the homes executed at the time
of the sale by the township. In nine uh September of 2020, Nassau East bought the property from West Orange Baby and the transfer of that deed went to that new ownership. And the
same on uh November of 2022 uh when the Brtinics purchased the property from Nassau East. Um that basically essentially means Cranberry Township owned the property for five years, West Orange Baby owned it for 13, Nassau for two, and the Brtinics just
over three years. In February of this year, the township should receive an email formally requesting the deed restriction be lifted um by the pretendix and the town that triggered the town um having a
legal responsibility to review that request and um in consultation with the historic preservation commission and schedule a joint public meeting. We also confirmed just prior to that
public meeting um whether or not Shipo, SHBO or SEDC uh who kind of comes first the cart worse situation and because we hold the deed the first point of decision making uh belongs with Cranberry Township.
And on 428, we had a public working session at the Cranberry Library uh during our our normal business of potential committee meeting. The summer uh 2025, TC members were extended an invitation by the property owner to tour
the exterior and interior of the house. I believe all five of us accepted. Not quite sure the extent of each of our tours, but um we were invited to the property and all five of us had accepted that. Um it was most recently on the
10th of November, ordinance 1125-14 had its first reading and was introduced to the public. And here today um is our scheduled public hearing which is a normal course of action. Um and um this evening we'll
conduct a public hearing and we'll conclude with ordinance 1125-14 either being adopted or rejected via vote by the township committee. Um just for process um we'd like to
start with the the pretendic and the the homeowner. Um followed by um uh hearing from the historic preservation commission. We will then open it up to public comment and that public comment will be specific to this ordinance. If
you have any public comment on any other business if you that will be at our normally scheduled public comment later in the meeting. So any public comment will be that and then we'll open it up to the township committee um to ask questions and we'll be asking them
throughout it. Um during that public comment um section same rules apply to our normal public comment following Robert's rules that's a threeminut limit not for HPC or the platinics but for general public comment it's a threem minute um time limit on that public
comment. Okay. >> Okay. Okay. So, title for ordinance is Cranberry Town Ordinance 11-25-14 ordinance granting consent to the owner of the property located at block 23, lot 12.01, 01 147 Plainsboro Road to raise
and reconstruct the farmhouse building located there on upon such reasonable terms and conditions as the township committee may deem advisable. And I just want to remind everybody within the ordinance um this ordinance shall not
become effective unless and until the township committee adopts such terms and conditions by resolution of the township committee. So I just want to reiterate that particular section there. >> Yeah. Why don't I just I just add that
here dealing with a particular provision of restriction. Everybody understands the background there. I want to read that into the record so they're all on the same page and I'll give you a definition of exceptional circumstances.
So this is paragraph B. Grantee, that's the case at this point, shall not demolish, remove or raise the facades of the building without the express consent of the township committee, the township acting in
consultation [laughter] with the township's historic preservation commission. Which consent shall be granted only in exceptional circumstances such as in the event extensive structural damage to or partial or total
destruction of the building and upon such reasonable terms and conditions as the council committee may be advised for. For purposes of this historic preservation easement, financial hardship shall not constitute an
exceptional circumstance. Those are the ground rules. That's what this council what do we mean when we say exceptional circumstances. There is no single definition of exceptional circumstances in law. The
right law dictionary defines the phrase as conditions which are out of the ordinary course of events unusual or extraordinary. So that's what the township committee wants to hear today back and forth. Why are these extraordinary events that should cause
them to exercise the open? We've got an obligation to hear from the um historic preservation commission as indeed they've been in coordination with them throughout and the HPC uh also not only
they presented documents to us which are on the website they will talk today and they also talk about finally committee cannot um vote to allow
the building to be raised except upon reasonable terms and conditions. And what this ordinance states is that it will not take effect, as the mayor said, unless or until reasonable terms and conditions are agreed.
This is not going to be the meeting where the terms and conditions are agreed. So if for instance the vote is yes we adopt the resolution there will be another phase which comes every
[laughter] one could you explain exceptional circumstances again just say >> sure so right in the document is a definition of what you could consider exceptional circumstances says shall be
granted only in exceptional circumstances common such as in the event of extensive structural damage to or partial or total destruction of the building and upon
this community. So you've got that example within the document and if we look for a legal legal definition that it's not a term often see the update is defined in glass and that is
conditions which are out of the ordinary course of events unusual members of the township committee. Good evening. My name is Jay Russo and I am an attorney with the law firm Su here tonight on behalf of Land Company LLC.
They are the owner of 147 Plainsboro Road which is identified on the township's tax map as block 23 blocks 12.01 and 12 confirmed. So first off I want to say thank you for that explanation. Save me a lot of time tonight is very accurate. Um but one
thing I would like to get out of the way at the beginning uh before getting really into my introduction is as well stated on the record there is an express definition and indeed restriction for exceptional circumstances and as we will
describe tonight um the uh existence of these extensive structural damages or partial or total destruction of the building is certainly present. So, we appreciate the opportunity to be here this evening. As we stated before, Mr. Gertin is
requesting that the township committee in consultation with the Historic Preservation Commission adopt an ordinance granting consent for the demolition of the Danzer House, which is a dilapitated 1860s farmhouse on the property to allow for the construction of a newly built replica structure in its place. This request, as noted, is
made pursuant to the steep restriction I just referenced, which was recorded by the township in 2007. As noted, it permits demolition in these exceptional circumstances and expressly notes that this includes excessive and extensive structural damage or destruction.
Since acquiring the property in 2022, has confronted a building that is not merely aging, but one that has experienced decades of documented deterioration. The township itself noted the building's critical disrepair as far back as 2004 when the township itself owned the property. Tax records for
nearly 20 years classified the building as being in poor condition. Yet no repairs were ever made by its prior owners, including the township. This is evidenced by prior open public records act requests which indicated that there are no building permits issued for the property during its time of ownership.
Independent structural engineers obtained by protect have confirmed that the building suffers from severe and longstanding structural failure, including compromised fragment, foundational instability, and partial roof collapse. Both engineered reports conclude that the structure is not a
viable candidate for restoration, and would in fact be best addressed through the full demolition and reconstruction. Photographs and inspection reports that we have submitted underscore the building's unsafe condition, including alled the presence of lead based paint in areas too hazardous to even access
under the deed restriction. These facts clearly meet the standard of exceptional circumstances. The level of deterioration is so significant that rehabilitation is not feasible and the continued deterioration poses serious safety concerns. Again, we want to emphasize here this is not because of
financial considerations. This is for health and safety reasons due to the existing condition of the building that truly make restoration an exceptional circumstance. With that in mind, Mr. Botenic is seeking your consent to demolish the existing structure and replace it with what will be a replica
that preserves the historic character of the original danzer house. Architectural plans for that replica have been provided to the committee and the commission. Now that said, we would like to take a moment to address a few comments that were made by the Historic Preservation Committee regarding this
property and its request. And this dates back to a report from April 2025 when this really started to kick off. So, one item that came up in the commission's recall of objection was that they noted that this property was not listed as a
historic property. That is correct. The HBC did acknowledge that the Danzer House is not part of the national national register of historic properties, but we also want to put on the record that Cranberry does not include this property in its historic district and is not listed as a historic site in the township's historic property
inventory. So really the kicker here for tonight is this deed restriction that is preventing demolition. Next, one item that was touched upon here, but I feel the need to address it again is the prior ownership of the property by the township. So, in this
HPC report from April 2025, the commission claims that the property was effectively sold at a loss for approximately 1 million and they claim that was because of the deed restriction that was imposed. That's not correct. According to the chain of title, town
paid 3,000 or excuse me 3,350,900 for the property in 2002. In 2004, the development rights for the property were sold to SADC, which stands for the state agricultural development committee for 2,14,8650028. This was in 2004.
Thereafter then the property in its entirety sold by the township in 2007 2,310,000 to the subsequent owner. So in other words the town received a profit for this property in the amount of 1,63,96528
but itself took no action to restore the existing builder. Final comment I have is that the HPC asserts that the engineer reports are missing important information. This could not be further from the truth for exhibit G which was submitted which is Mr. Protinic structural engineering
report severe foundational damage joist damage termite infestations would be deterioration floor deterioration to the point that the engineer of record stated and I quote based on these observations the first floor is in dire need of repair and we recommend that the building not be used until remediation
is made. anyone as accessing the space shall use extreme caution due to the potential for member failure within the first floor. Similarly, in exhibit H, Mr. Carlton's second structural engineer, it was noted that the building experienced major deterioration and that many of the materials used in the
property were not even original materials. In some the record clearly demonstrates that exceptional circumstances exist and that we're all after the demolition and Mr. is fully committed to working collaboratively with the township to ensure that any terms conditions or preservation
requirements are appropriately addressed in a matter of consistent with restriction and the township's historic preservation. Now I have with me present tonight Mr. Proip to share a little bit of insight how we came into ownership of the property and really what his intentions are with this property. So
Michael if you wouldn't mind uh would you mind explaining you know just a little bit about yourself and what you do further. >> Right. Could you make sure [clears throat] to speak up? Thank you. >> Now, so my father and I, we actively
farming since 1929. Good time to continue. >> So, Michael, uh, you know, as I noted, your family became owners of the property in around November of 2022. At that time, were you aware of the historic preservation easement? This is
correct. Now, since you've owned the property, have there been any material changes to the structure since your purchase? >> No, it was it was clear that it had the building structure had suffered neglect for many years. Could you tell me a little bit how the
prior property owner how they treated utilities to the property? So, all utilities were disconnected. So, electric, heat, water, you know, anything that would be required to live in a home. And as noted, you've made no
modifications or alterations to this property since ownership. No. Now, what is your intent with respect to utilization of the actual historic structure if you were to demolish it and reconstruct it? So this will be my personal reference
and I enjoy farming. It's what I do for now. Michael, I know this has been a sensitive subject, but would you mind sharing with the board a little bit about your current struggles right? Um
so doing something as long as I can, right? That that is dependent on your health. So, I've been battling multiple conditions, chronic conditions, whether it be lime,
currently fibromyalgia, uh really committed to multiple sclerosis. So, I'm still going through these processes of diagnosis, but I'm here and I'm doing what I need to do. Now, I will note an exhibit was submitted on the record that indicates
at least doctors did indicate that there are similar health conraints. Now, Michael, one of the reasons that you want to demolish this property, construct it, is because of the adverse health effect that this existing structure would have on. Is that correct? >> Yes. >> And as noted, we submitted a report that shows the presence of lead paint
throughout the entirety of the structure. As a matter of fact, it was so bad that certain portions of the structure cannot be surveyed for lead paint because, as they note in that exhibit, it was too unsafe for the lead based paint engineers to inspect. Is that correct?
So [clears throat] that more or less concludes my direct questions of Mr. Broin. One final point I'd like to touch on is you hear tonight from objectors council that there's going to be two points of emphasis here as to why they believe this uh consent should not be granted. One is they're going to argue
that financial considerations are not appropriate. And we'd like to start off by saying we agree that is clearly in the deepest structure. This is not because of financial considerations. Mr. Protenna is looking to become a member of Cranberry Township. He wants to live
in this residence. He wants to forcing Mr. Protin in these exceptional circumstances to attempt to renovate a property that could not be feasibly renovated per these engineering warrants that is contaminated with lead based paint and all these other insect
infestations and other issues that will mega adverse health. You are fish through or effectively preventing Mr. from living on this property. His health will significantly deteriorate for his own report from his doctor if he is forced to live in this house in his
current condition. The second point that's going to come up in this objection has to do with this concept that additional consultants should be permitted to inspect the property. And we disagree with that. We've had two structural engineers come out to the property that both reached the same
conclusion that there was severe structural damage. That point has not been at all contested by a decker's council. Rather, the question now is, do we send additional consultants effectively until we find one that agrees with us, which we believe at this
point is appropriate. Mr. Proin on the idea that financial considerations are not relevant. But Wilno has spent significant funds in getting these engineer reports in analyzing the property in preparing architectural plans that will continue this historic character of the structure if it is to
be rebuilt throughout the community. Which leads me to my last and final point. The de restrictions concerned with the facade is concerned with the facades of the structure. It is not concerned with the interior. The reason why this is relevant that this is not your typical historic structure that is
open to the public for inspection. It is set back well over 200 feet from the property line and the concern of Cranberry was keeping the historical architectural features that the public would be able to see when passing by. They don't want that structure and that was the intent behind the deed restriction to be
demolished and then rebuilt some mansion that's out of character for primary. That's not what's being proposed here. We want the same architectural features all be in a structure that is safe for human habitation and that will not negatively impair my client's health condition. And with that um I would
publicly want to bring along questions probably. >> Yeah. [laughter] Yeah, I don't. Yeah, I would I think you know in our process we want to hear from HBC and then we're probably it's up to
you guys. I think what we wanted to do is go to HBC, but if you want to take this step by step and ask questions, we can do that. >> I'm just curious how do we ask him like how do we ask questions after? Do they
sit up here or do they change or [laughter] >> is there anything you would like to ask them right now? >> And if you don't mind, Mr. I don't mean to jump the gun here, but um I know we did send you because there's two parts of the restriction. There's are there
exceptional circumstances and then are there reasonable conditions? We did offer reasonable conditions. If you'd like, I can read those into the record right now or if that's something that's more appropriate for later. Sure. So, we proposed five conditions that will help continue the historic charact.
So, I'll read these one by one. The first one would be that the applicant agrees that any new structure will be built in accordance with the architectural plans that were prepared by RJ Architecture dated January 14th, 2024. This was exhibit C number sufficient. Um and effectively what that does is it replicates the existing
structure of the same facades, the same building. Item two, the applicant agrees that the materials used in the new construction will be consistent with the historic character of the original house, but subject of course to current safety. Obviously, we're not going to use light paint again because that would be
inappropriate. Number three, the applicant will not demolish the dancer house until all approvals necessary for reconstruction for the replica are obtained. And just for the board's convenience, these approvals will include but not necessarily be limited to the state
agricultural development committee, the state historic preservation office, and then the county board. Four, the applicant will apply for building permits within one year of the date of issuance of the demolition permit. Once building permits are issued, the applicant will diligently pursue
construction structure subject to supply chain labor availability and other full events. What we're getting at here is the applicant is not going to demolish the structure and then sit on it for 5 years and just leave an eyes open. And then finally, and this is uh you know
one that we'll have to uh discuss how we'll put this into conditions, but the applicant would agree to what is effectively specific performance to enforce the terms and conditions described here. So that way the township has some form of teeth to ensure that the applicant complies to these conditions because we understand your
concern that we do not want the applicant to move forward with demolishing the property and then doing nothing or demolishing the property before getting all permits. We would allow the township to impose a condition that enforces that type of compliance. And with that that covers our conditions
that we propose to this. So for instance, uh the Barkley Farm is listed on the North County list of fruit on the New Jersey National
Places County and it references Chicago from 9 to 204 which is part of the record. Um you agree that before you be able to demolish
you would you would get approval from >> Yes that's correct and quite frankly if we violated that they would issue a stop order and we'd be subject to fine so >> and so similarly um you're subject to the agricultural presented with the SAPC and that
references the subsequent historic historic site the historic restriction that was entered by the township you have to go to the [clears throat] as well that is so regardless of what the township does you've got at least two
other state agencies you've got to seek approval for before you can >> that is correct And again, not to bring more objections to this, but we do know that that would [laughter] be open to members of the public that they can raise their concerns with those committees and those commissions. Um, it
would be a similar process to this, but that would all be of course open to the public of public record to the public. >> Let me let me ask two hard questions. >> Sure. First is um [clears throat] and you can answer
but certainly when you purchased the property, inspected the property, you knew the condition of the property at the time of purchasing it. Um why are there now exceptional circumstances when you bought the property knowing what it looked like then?
>> Right. So you can correct me if I'm out of line here, but I believe my understanding is this property was bought to be formed. That was the primary focus. We understood this protic understood that the property was in a dilapidated condition and I'm sure that there was a debate as to
whether it would be reasonable to restore this or to completely defeat it. Then we obtained our structural engineer reports. We did not get those before purchasing the property. Those structural engineer reports tell a different story and that's what has brought us to that. We also did not know again the presence of lead based paint,
termites, all these other issues. We knew he was in a severe state of disrepair and we did not know to exact why is Mr. understand is that health why is his
health relevant to the decision of [laughter] this committee when it's the building that is this is something which runs with the land and should not be interpreted in terms of the unique character
>> right so we're not arguing that the exceptional circumstances are directly or solely because of Mr. protein itself. I think it's certainly relevant and especially something to consider when you have a new resident coming in that wants to be a member of this community.
But aside from that point, the D restriction is focused with the facade because as I noted, this is not a public exhibit for you know the local school to do a tour through uh you know to to look through the property. It is a single family residence that is designed to be
inhabited and that's consistent with both the deed restriction with that the township imposed as well as the SAC restriction from 2004. So really the intent here is to have something that can be safely inhabited or inhabited without these adverse health effects. I
think everyone would agree that if we were to discover that there was significant asbestos that made the property uninhabitable that we would all agree that it's not safe for someone to for human habitation and there would only be so many appropriate remedies.
Reusing those substances, same thing. Reusing this wood that is covered in lightly paint does not it is not consistent with the intent of that deed restriction. And the deed restriction of course had to contemplate scenarios such as this for what if the property was
falling on itself. You know, I use the extreme example. What happens if it was struck by lightning or burned down and there was really nothing left? This committee I don't think would be in a position to say we'll rebuild from the ashes. of course that would be inappropriate and I understand that's not the case here. We're talking about severe structural defects. But our focus
here is that because that's what the deconstruction refers to. in and funding. Um, if the committee were to adopt this ordinance, um, would you be willing to work with the folks from the HBC uh, to determine
what the side should look like and how it should be restored to a natur former condition? So >> yeah, I I think one of the things we're going to hear from HBC is that there are standards for restoration and that those
are national standards and they're well recognized for historic buildings. Understand this is not a historic building. Nevertheless, there is a historic restriction. would he be willing to work with them to incorporate some of those national
standards in the restoration of the s um I'll take >> so yes we work of course we work with historic preservation commission but the one concern here is we want to make sure there's a level of reasonleness we are proposing a graphic we propose to use the same materials or substantially
similar and the same design so that's not the issue here what we would be concerned started out as a scenario where it's you know one change after another and ultimately the property cannot be reconstructed because of you know we propose something that was identical and that still isn't
sufficient. So we want to make sure that yes subject to the historic preservation commission's review and approval but ensuring that there's a definitive standard that if we propose something that is identical in both architectural design and materials used that that would be sufficient to meet that
standard. The same way we're dealing with the deed restriction with the standard that's set forth now. Exactly. >> Right. Right. Exactly. >> Just one quick when you purchased the property, did you consider doing something like
this three years ago? Was there a moment where you thought, well, hey, I might want to live in that house, so I should dig a little deeper. three years ago. >> Okay. So, right. I know we said, you know, the
focus is we focus on farming. That's what we >> um No, I I've read through everything. I looked at everything and I, you know, I thought to myself, well, okay, this this is not going to be a uh
an impulse decision as any the whole thing, right? So, you know, you sit with it for a while, you move on, you make your decision, you go, okay, so let's purchase it and let's let's use our brain on this as we go forward. you
know, we're not going to just jump the gun on any single one decision. So, we're going to really flesh things out. And the more you I dig, more the the further I fell into illness, the
more important it became to have something safe for me in a in a healthy manner. Um, I think there's really there's really no other way to explain
other than I I've thought about each of these steps. >> Questions? Quick question. Um, I know you have kids, but [laughter] how many kids? >> I don't have children. >> Oh, sorry. >> I don't have children. >> Okay.
>> Just [laughter] So just you >> um I guess my other question is obviously you you purchased the property and you had structural engineers and you had contractors. You had the intention of rebuilding.
Yes. I I I was digging into that. Well, it correct me if I'm wrong here, but it was to analyze what we're dealing with here to see what our options are. Yeah. To get a full understanding the whole picture. >> No, no, no. It's >> um I don't know if it's just
coincidence, but there's a lot of Rwords that we're using in this dialogue and it's a lot of Rwords. We're talking about replica, restore, renovation, and I feel like there needs to be some consensus on the terms that we're using and how we're applying them because
we're just saying restore the facade. Are we saying after we demolish the building, you're restoring the facade or are we renovating and then restoring? Like there's just I'm getting a little bit confused and I want to make sure that whatever terms we use that we're
defining them and we're agreeing on their use. >> Absolutely. So the correct term >> so from your perspective what are the terms you're using and how do you define them? I would use the word demolish and then reconstruction of a replica and as
one of the conditions that's why that was the first one we really want to emphasize is that this construction or reconstruction however you want to refer to it will be consistent with those architectural plans that we submitted which emphasize that same facade design
and replica design of the existing building and we know this is not going to be a replica quite frankly what's there right now this going to be a replica of what was there I'd say the 1950s when the structure was still intact. >> Thank you. I'm going to ask the same of the HPC. So, just be prepared for that
same question because if you're defining one of these words differently or its application, I think we we just want to make sure of that, >> right? I apologize for [laughter] that. >> No, that's okay. It's all around. It's not. >> First of all, I um I think we speak for
well, I'll speak for myself, but I think um one thing in common is that we really want a house that current owners can live in and safely. It's how we get there. And there's two, no, two opposing
views. So just make sure you know that's what we want. How do we get there? That's what we've been kind of what we're here for. So um so you define reconstruction. I look at the
standards but I think you're saying that the standards don't apply. Was that thought of it? So if he happens and see you don't use the standards of the interior um you know the um the secretary of interior standard um and
they use reconstruction and they describe in the standard it's for non-s surviving buildings with the use of new materials. So I think my hard part with this is um if we use the Secretary of Interior standards for treatment of historical
property um it's for PE for buildings that aren't there yet. So we're going to destroy the building. >> Yeah. So what you're referring to is that subsection C in the capital restriction. >> Right. >> And I'll read verbatim the first sentence of that. So it says all
preservation, restoration, rehabilitation, non-yclical maintenance and other work of any nature including labor material that affect the historic aesthetic and architectural character of the facades. And then it goes on to shines. That section is referencing preserving
the structure, >> right? The other Rs, >> right? We we are so if if this committee finds it more appropriate just to use the word reconstruction, we're also fine with that. The reason we use reconstruction is for to assume our words here, but because it's going to be
a replica. Now, in terms of those standards, you know, many of those people look to comply with because those standards really reference keeping the the existing historic character. But we'll also note those standards do contemplate using new materials. They contemplate when there are joys,
structural damage that you can replace it with new modern materials. The goal, end goal here is to keep the same historic character and architecture. Sometimes it requires new modern materials to to keep that. But the reason that's not necessarily relevant
here is because subsection B is talking about a full demo. In theory, if the township wanted to completely lift this deed restriction and we went through all appropriate approvals and were allowed to build some other structure that was not historically significant. That's not what we're proposing, but the township
could do that because that's what this restriction is effectively um what's being lifted. It's allowing for that leeway in construction, but we ourselves as the applicant here are looking to remain consistent with that historical character because again we know what's in this restrictions of sides. That's
what the township really appreciated in this historic structure and we want to keep that. So anyone driving through the rightway is going to see that same historic character. The same way the farm is preserved, the farm is going to be used as a farm for as long as the uh SADC, State Agricultural Development
Committee maintains their restriction. that's not getting released anytime soon. So, it's always going to be a farm and it's always going to be a structure that's a story provided that's how this committee decides to impose that commission.
>> Okay. Um, thank you. Um, I do have like it's it seems seems hard to enforce because it's outstanding. So, um, you know, without definitive engineering reports, which you you chose to state certain sentences
within those engineering reports, but when I read some of these, when I read the reports, and the public has had access to them, too. I could pull out things that are questionable on those engineering reports. So, um, you know, it says most of the structures was
concealed in architectural finishes that prohibited [laughter] a direct visual inspection. Most of our work was completed by identifying areas of structural distress. Uh and then the report goes on to describe some of those defects which you did. Um we would also it says we would also like to note that
most buildings in the shape of the one in question can be salvaged and restored. They will take desire in a financial committee whatever we've already negated the financial whatever. So that's one. Um >> I I think you're focused on one aspect
of these reports. the remainder and vast majority which I could read but I don't want to read >> no and I don't want to either that's why you're picking certain >> but I'm not the conclusion does say that the structural components and their damage is severe and that that's why this is a good candidate for demolition
if there was the alternative in an alternative universe that this was not correct the structural engineers would not recommend this which mind you we had two separate structural engineers >> I was going to say the other one too big um left is still unknown until nonstructural elements have been removed
for a thorough survey. We believe that the building can be rebuilt in its entirety and maintain the same exterior style. So they are in this but the thing is is we haven't had an opportunity to look
inside but that's [laughter] just letting you know right and I appreciate >> and I I appreciate that right that that is stated in report but there is another side to that story so that's not technically correct the reason those other aspects of the structure were not fully surveyed is because they're not
safe for the access which is one of the issues that we face in this reconstruction. So if anything, but if we were to go forward with a we'll call it a rehabilitation. I think that's the more appropriate word in terms of preserving the existing structure. We would face the issues of our engineers
even accessing those areas for the rebuild because it is not safe for human occupancy or even access. That's what's noted. You know, you can't even access the first floor because it might cave in on itself. the photos we submitted, they do provide um you know a clear depiction
of that and that's why we really wanted to provide these photos and they're in the reports as well where it can show the joy is caffeine and white by termites the roof is caving in that was the reason for why these other areas really couldn't be surveyed. Again, we can get more structural engineers to
look at this property, but they're going to reach the same result because it's really not safe at this time. I want to start first of all. Thank you very much for the state. I you know for me I think visual is very important to go along with your report.
I tried very hard to remain very poker based in this process because I do appreciate that I'm coming into this relatively new because I don't have a history with either party on this property. Um, having said that, I find myself
quite confused still with the things that are ahead of me. I want very much to grant everybody what they want, right? We all want us all to leave happy. How do we all leave happy? It's it's may not happen.
I I'm wondering I'm wondering out loud with you. um with regards to this historic structure and maintaining it so it can still be defined as a historic structure because I think that we we wander into um muddy
waters we call it a historic structure when it might be a replica of a historic structure and I think that members probably that historic preservation committee might agree with you that if if you have demolished a structure and reconstructed it it is a
But it is not a historic structure. There is value I think in exploring how you can structure because it becomes a model. Um, I did a little bit of research sort
of looking at the various foreign properties in town and the structures that are on the properties. You know, if you were able to maintain this house um in a manner that would provide living quarters that would be healthy for you,
you know, it becomes it becomes something it becomes a feature you add to your farm. And I've watched your farm grow this year. It was just a farm stand and then it became corn maze and then it became almost like a destination for many residents in town to stop by to
pick up their flowers and produce. It would be another feature on your farm and I don't know I'm speaking and I'm not quite sure no you want sorry I was going to say there is a restriction on structures that can be
built that's so not structures that can be built. If you have a structure that you have the houses here what I'm saying is if you work to restore rather than demolish and build up you can actually promote it as a historic
structure. It becomes I I think it can become a very attractive feature of your farm almost a business venture. >> Yeah. So I I I I see where where you're going with this, right? So it's to preserve it. So it's it's a benefit to
your farm. The problem we face naturally why we're here tonight is it becomes very difficult to be for because of all these existing issues and that restoration effort. That's really why we got these structural engineer
reports. It makes it again these exceptional circumstances where it is not practical. It is so severe. And I do have now I brought 10 copies of them just with a few photos that we did submit. I did not want to bring them out today just because I don't want to seem
like I'm introducing new exhibits. They're just three selected photos from the photos that we published on the website just so the public or any members of the community want to get an idea of what we're dealing with. >> Okay. >> Okay. I got maybe I don't see
it in person. >> Okay. Yeah. And that's right. >> No, we certainly have seen it in person and it's not a very pretty site. It's a very difficult space to be involved in. I understand. Um but the the technical aspect of that is is also I think um
important for us to weigh in on and that you know I not to belabor what Dr. right now, but you know, I've certainly covered over very similar aspects of the report that sort of give us remedies of how we can fix, you know, some of the more problematic areas. And again, I'm
wondering out loud with you whether that may be worth exploring because it allows you to keep and promote a a historic house. you know, a historic farm with a historic house would be very attractive for a resident, for a
tourist, for someone and it becomes a point of I mean, is is that a permitted use or is is that restricted by this >> restricted by the [clears throat] SAT to us to have a building where it
is not agricultural uses >> agricultural >> agriculture uses >> what I'm They say to them to if they were to go perhaps there's a
business opportunity there as well. Maybe that's what they're asking for. >> Your decision >> and they're understood. I I understand but I I'm I'm certainly thinking out loud with you. I I feel like this is the
opportunity. You know, we have one opportunity all the way equal and this is the next opportunity. Um I also will share with you that in my process of research for myself because I'm not an engineer. I'm not an architect. I'm not a historian. I've had to really sit down
and try to define some of these these words that are floating around. So, you know, someone said, well, you could restore a structure even if you take it down to the studs. And in my innocent perspective, taking something down to the studs and it turns out that it's not by
historic standards actually very acceptable for restoration. And I'm wondering whether these are things, you know, just like I have been, you know, having to educate myself on a lot of this window. Is this an area that you would be willing to explore? Like what
does that mean? That we can actually cut the interior down to its studs and make it protective and healthy for us. The one thing I'll note is even if we [laughter] say we did do that, let's just say devils out the year. It was reasonably possible and there wasn't
health and safety issues which again there are um that would still entail demolishing or moving the subs. That's the that is the sole really preserved historic aspect of the structure. the interior right now we are free without
the consent of this community to change change the flooring whatever it might be the historic aspect per se is truly just the facades um so I mean you know we brought it down to the studs what are we preserving then at that point and that's why you some of these reports note that some of these and again doesn't say
specifically facads but even with the interior a lot of it is not original to the original dancer house some of it has been swapped materials over the years so And I'm not talking about the interiors and I think that um you know was very generous in saying that he would be very
happy to sort of save what could be saved on the inside and I thought that was very you know that was very good. Um I I am talking about the outside structures. So here's what we would propose because really again the primary reason here tonight is health and safety. We'll
absolutely look at that requirement, but it has to be safe to do so. Um, can't be any chemicals, lead based, paint, something that makes it where it's not going to be safe. Then also removing those structures. Is it going to be safe for the engineers to do this? If it can
be done in a reasonable fashion and it's not going to pose a health or safety risk to both the construction workers or to my client's property, absolutely. >> And I appreciate um I appreciate that. Thank you. I I feel and apologize, but I
feel like more questions. >> Yeah. >> And thank you very much for answering. >> And just like in the spirit of consistency, when I hear down to the studs, I I think of a construction that's happening down the road and it's
like framing. A foundation has been laid and I'm looking at framing and there's nothing else left of the house. Is that the proper visual description of down to the studs? I I don't know. >> I don't I don't think so. No, I think that you have to maintain the outside
walls, but we will hear from someone from who will clarify that. >> Thank you. >> I just I also want to say that I just didn't want to I didn't want to bring up a lot because I know HBC is going to be said a lot and I know I'll have questions. Thank you. Thanks.
>> Further questions. Thank you so much. >> Thank you. >> Thank you guys. >> Good evening. >> It's great. He needs to speak up. Yeah, it's for the YouTube people. >> So, good evening. I'm Jennifer
[laughter] Sappire. I'm chair of HC >> and I'm Guy and I um so I appreciate the opportunity to speak tonight. Um these remarks represent careful work, research and deliberation by the commission. they
work very hard on this. Um, and I'll begin by just sharing that, you know, in April during our initial working session, um, we had a very clear position which we stand with. We still continue to have the same position, which is that based on the information
we've been provided. There's not enough evidence to justify demolition of this property. It is a historically significant property. It has been deemed eligible for the National Register of Historic Places by the New Jersey State Preservation Office. It's as mentioned
earlier, it's listed um in county. It has deep roots in Cranberry story from the early Barkley family. They were initial settlers of of Cranberry prior to even Cranberry founded. uh through
generations of farmers and families and sharecroers and um many descendants, some of which are still in this town. This house is part of the fabric of our community. It's also been a historic property that
was identified in our township's master plan. Cranberry uh in the master plan re-examination also talked about the importance of restoring uh farm um agricultural properties and
maintaining our our rural character. The town made a substantial investment in this property by owning it as we discussed earlier this evening and putting the historic preservation easement on the structure. demolishing it would directly contradict both the
investment and the township's longstanding preservation goals. I want to be very clear about our position. It's that completely raising the structure is an extreme act.
Demolition is permanent. It's reversible, irreversible. It should only be considered when all other reasonable options have been exhausted. That threshold has not been met here. The Secretary of the Interior
standards for rehabilitation were created specifically to address the kinds of concerns that the homeowners raised. Structural issues, safety concerns, environmental hazards, modernization. These are national time-tested standards
that are used successfully across the country to restore historic homes facing serious deterioration. The framework exists in that document I sent you that has 300 pages and I'm sure you've
studied variously all all last week 250. Um this is not an extraordinary situation. This is something that happens all the time. In April, we emphasized that in order to decide that this magnitude
needs to happen, there needs to be an impartial assessment. The problem is that the structural engineers that came forward were hired by the same parties that are wishing to demolish it. One might argue that it's not an impartial
assessment, but also the property has never been surveyed. How can we be building a replica if we don't even have a survey of the structure we're replicating? Finally, a professional historic valuation. We can't demolish a property
if we haven't captured all of the historic details by a professional and had it properly uh put into record so that we have that record of that lost structure. None of these things have been completed and HPC was excluded from
the exterior interior visit sites which quite frankly raises serious questions about transparency and that HPC was not included in this process. Buildings shouldn't be demolished without allowing the very body tasked with their protection to fully assess them. Moving
forward with demolition plans without properly completing these steps is quite frankly putting the cart before the horse. The deed for this property explicitly requires compliance with the secretary interior standards. And that raises a question, how have these
standards been applied here? The justifications that the property owner have put forward in our opinion are [clears throat] just not adequate. The first item that was mentioned is the structural issues.
Even the experts hired again for review were viewing this building they even even those people they wrote that it can be restored and that they even laid out methods in which you can do so. There's lots of detailed lines within these
reports that specifically state how different elements of the structure can be restored. So why are we deciding then with the same report to use it as evidence to demolish something if instead we should
be using this report in a way especially if it's these people that were hired by the by the property owners are such experts we should use their recommendations to restore the property. There are people out there to do this.
Um the fact that restoration requires investment, it just doesn't make demolition justified. And again, historic homes in the in this country face structural issues every day. They are repaired and not a waste.
Second thing that the property owner mentioned is that their health concerns are reason for the demolition. We did research and we cannot find a single precedent where a historic structure has been raised due to an
owner's personal health situation. While it's extremely unfortunate for the homeowner that is having health issues, there's no legal requirement for the homeowner to occupy the structure, especially not to live there in its
current condition. We of course would recommend that the property be restored and we believe that it can be restored to a safe and healthy place where the homeowner who chooses to live there can um we believe that this can be done in a
safe and proper and code compliant process. The last point that was mentioned by the homeowner's attorney with lead paint. I cannot begin to tell you that lead paint exists in countless historic buildings.
If we had demolished every building that found lead paint, we wouldn't have the White House, the US Capital, Mount Vernon, the Statue of Liberty. The list goes on. Those are all structures that they found lead paint in. It is extremely common to remediate lead
paint. It's regulated does not justify demolishing the resource. These are not reasons. They're challenges for they're not reasons for demolition. They're challenges. And the Secretary of Interior standards
exist to help address the standards. In terms of thinking forward, demolition is not the practical path renovation is. Working collaborative collaboratively with HPC can be far more beneficial to the property owners and to
the township. At HPC, we successfully guided homeowners through a variety of challenges such as lifting up their property, relocating properties, restoring them, modernizing. We have flexible solutions, flexible materials,
and we would love to work with them. Preserving a a property doesn't mean freezing the home time either. It's it means investing wisely, updating responsibly, protecting what makes cranberry unique. Raising a structure is
extreme and unnecessary. In terms of the township [laughter] committee and your decision, I did want to address some comments earlier in the last township meeting that there's frustration over these this situation
being inherited situation, right? um that you know predecessors hadn't done anything and that and that this has fallen on the shoulders of our township committee and might feel like we need to make some sort of a decision in order to make something happen.
I would actually say that the prior leaders if you think about it they made a deliberate choice. They established and recorded a preservation easement and they actually
prohibited demolition by not allowing any of those owners prior to this property owner to demolish him. And that was not in action. It was intentional protection. So you have the authority and the
responsibility to enforce the easement that was in this property. The deed states that any term that's violated or threatened the township has a life right to pursue court action to require restoration of the facade. This I mean this obviously is a little extreme but
at this point I mean the property is being threatened. The owners are aware of their obligations and time has passed and nothing has been done. Approving a demolition is going to set an extremely dangerous precedent for our town. that
neglect is being rewarded and and that legally binding easements can be simply bypassed. It's a really big decision for you all, but I really do encourage you to think about that precedent. We're not trying to encourage you to stop cross that progress. We're asking
you to choose the responsible path and we believe that completely raising this property is extreme and irreversible. Renovation can be done. collaboration is welcomed and preservation is consistent with Cranberry's values and legal
commitments. So um with that I know that the parties also discussed that terms and conditions document did you want to hear our opinions on that document as well now or later?
>> I think it would help with two things. one, you give us your thoughts about those conditions. >> Okay. >> And second, if this committee were to vote yes, what you think appropriate conditions yourself? >> Okay. So, um I have some handouts for
you guys with regards to that. >> Just make sure that as well. >> Oh, sure. I have So that's the record. >> [laughter] >> Um, so I want to begin by stating that
we again not view demolition as a possible option. So it would be disheartening to us if you were to vote yes. It's difficult in that situation for us to suggest terms and conditions for a demolition when we don't agree
with it. Um and um you know we were provided a list of stipulations from the property's attorney. Uh and quite frankly in our opinion we felt that they were vague and unrealistic. Um and they demonstrate kind of a lack
of understanding uh and respect for the historic preservation process. it was very difficult for us to um get behind those. Um so I thought what might be important for us, which is why I put forward these um handouts, is really to
make sure we're grounded in what the standards are. And so the Secretary of Interior's guidelines, they have four different paths for properties. There's preservation, that is if you have a property, you preserve it. That is usually the most
less labor intensive process. >> Yes. >> I want to make sure that we're all the same page about what we're talking about. >> Yes. The terms and conditions. >> Yes. >> But as I understand it, there are two aspects to this research. >> There's a building and there's the facade. [clears throat]
>> The facade must maintain its historic character. The building can be doesn't have to be. It can be a large building to be lived in, but it can only be raised or demolished upon a showing of
exceptional circumstances and approved by the committee. I have that right >> the facades are historic. >> Yes. >> The building is not a historic structure. >> Yes. >> Is it is it listed?
[cough] It is listed with with New Jerseys register. Yes. >> Okay. So, but it's only the besides according to the restriction that is required to meet the secretary of
interior standards that there's going to be any rehabilitation. [clears throat] Right. Paragraph C refers to the facades. >> Yeah. But it's difficult to it's very difficult to how do you preserve a facade if you're
raising the entire building? >> Yeah, exactly. >> That's that's the whole point. >> So, but just to go back to that, I just want to clarify >> on on the document for New Jersey in its in its listing there,
the farm is listed. Correct. >> The building the the house is not listed. It's the farm that's listed. Am I I'm not trying to be technical, but that's what that's what I >> We kind of need [clears throat] to be >> We need to be technical on that. [laughter]
>> It's the structure and the farm. >> So, it's just it's the structure on the farm. >> Is is this a historic site? Is it anywhere as a few where [snorts] where is it listed as
you I submitted it into >> I know it [laughter] county's list of historic places. >> So this is the Barkley farm. Yes. Whereas if you look above it, John Bartley's house on Ancel Davidson Road,
it specifies the house and this it specifies Bartley Farm. >> I think that's what it calls it. >> But again, >> you look at this point that's your position. >> I can't ignore Mr. Russo. You have a
different opinion. Let's put it on the record. >> Sure. So yeah, simply that's not correct. The farm is listed as historic structure. They can read the 2004 letter from D. They note that it might be eligible. It was never designated. So the structure itself is not designated. There's absolutely difference when you list a actual property, a piece of land
and a farm. And that's partially where we get this SADC restriction for the farm. And then there's a difference, >> but just because it's not nationally bred, he keeps going in and saying that it's nationally not registered. It's still it's still acknowledged by Shipo
in the state of New Jersey as a pl as a historic. >> You can sit down. >> So it's like apples and oranges here. There's state and then there's national. So let me ask you this thing. Paragraph Cers states specifically
says all preservation, restoration, rehabilitation, nonical maintenance and other work of any nature that affect the historic aesthetic and architectural character of the facades which shall be done in compliance with current federal state
statutes. Is it your position that that should actually refer to the entire building and not just the facades? >> I mean, I think if they wanted to take off the facade, are you saying that that you're where you're going with this? If
they take off the facades and demolish the guts of the building and then put the facades back on again, is that what you're Because I I I mean, it's difficult for me to to envision that happening. I think that would be way more complicated
um for the interior of the building. >> Yeah, I think the interior of the building. >> You need the interior to hold up. >> Okay. >> I think that's what it comes down to. So, so I think where they're making confusion is
>> um they say they will reconstruct the facades in a historic man, but they want the interior of the building to be a modern building
>> regardless of what's there now. Mhm. >> Does that satisfy your concerns? >> In in a way, I think the the problem is though, they're still going to demolish the entire structure. And we agree that
it's perfectly fine for them to, as Lisa, you know, was mentioned, go to the studs. They want to go to the studs and and demolish the, you know, the interior components of the property. I mean, they have a right to do that according to
that deed restriction. I guess it's just the in the um it's not the facade. They want to get rid of things that are not the facade, but it's going to be difficult for them to keep the facade if they get rid of the guts of the house
entirely and the foundation and stuff like that, especially since the foundation is part of the facade. So if they if you got if they got rid of the like replace the electrical and replace everything inside. >> Yeah. >> And took off the whatever the walls are
made like the plaster and the sheeting. That's okay. >> Yeah. >> To expose the interior structure. >> You said that back in April. >> That's is that what you're asking? Is that building is the whole thing? >> Yeah. >> What I'm saying is um
There's the building and there's the facade. And I think to me quite clearly the facades must be kept in an historic manner. And that's the [clears throat] whole point. >> Yes. >> They say they want a liveable building. >> Yeah.
>> And that the way to get there is to tear it down, build it with facades that are historic, but interior which is modern. And I think that for
wheat of interior standards, it's very difficult to raise an entire building and then go and try to source all of the all of exactly all those
exact components from an old house and make it exactly the same. >> Okay. >> It's not going to be the same. I I interrupt you. Go ahead with your rest of your presentation. >> So, I'll I'll I'll continue on just and
explain because I really do want to make sure you guys understand that there are these steps and what we're asking for again is we just don't want that extreme raising the entire thing to the ground. Um we we believe that the what the
challenge is when they say that they want to do reconstruction or or create a replica. The problem is is that is not a really a replica according to how historic preservation works. Um they as I've you know explained to other people
in layman's terms building a replica is like getting a 3D view of the building done made and replicating it bit by bit which is not like the architectural plans that were submitted. They're not a
replica. And so it's very difficult for us to look at the terms and conditions that were set forward because they haven't even surveyed the house that they're replicating. Again, I think that's a huge miss. Um
they if they were to do we we believe they could just there are plenty of people out there who can help restore this house. Um I in the handouts I provided to you. I mean there are I just did a simple Google search. There are so
many structural engineer and contractors that are experts in fixing problems with historic um historic houses with structural problems. You talk to anyone on our main street and they work with them because old houses have structural
problems at some point in time. Um, I'm pretty sure that if you were to ask them though like would they have rather raised their house, most would say no because the materials that are in old houses are very very strong and very unique.
Um, the same thing goes for the lead paint. There are lots of lead paint contractors out there. And so again, I think following the restoration standards of the Secretary of Interior would be the best thing for the for the
property owner because also just jumping forward, they're not if you look at the last page of the handout, they're not going to have to go through the state historic preservation office and get an approval. They're not going to have to go back to the state agricultural board and get an approval. They'll just need
to put an application through HPC and basically retain the components. They can gut whatever they want in the middle of the house and and make it modern on the inside if they would like. You know, we would of course recommend that they
maybe recycle those one, you know, unique antique moldings and fireplaces and all that stuff, but you know, we believe that this property can still be be be saved and you know and we yeah
and that's really what it comes down to. We just don't think that there should be such an extreme path here. >> Committee members have questions. >> Um my questions are not meant to be antagonistic. They're meant to help clarify
>> how we make decisions and that's why I'm concerned about terms that we're using and I want to make sure when we're describing down to the studs that the visual I have in my head is appropriate. So just a technical question on when the deed was put into place. We that deed
was put in to protect the facade as it existed at the time that the deed went in. Am I interpreting that correctly? That's how I'm interpreting. >> I just want to make sure that that's the right way to do it. And again, this is not meant to be disrespectful because I
want you to get I'm trying to get in my own mind too and express how I'm thinking about things. >> Yeah. >> The roof is part of the facade, right? >> Yeah. >> That's not the original roof obviously from 1860.
>> The siding is not the same material or Lord knows what's under that. Yeah. Yeah, because there's 17,000 layers of wallpaper in the house. I can only imagine there's probably four layers of that facade. But what we have to look at is the facade that we're looking at, not
what's underneath that facade. Right. >> Am I right? >> And then the windows, which there's a variety of windows that are on the house now. They're not all the same. >> That's part of the facade. So, do we
have to reuse the same three different types of windows? Like, I don't know. Do you know you know what I'm saying? Like, how do we how do we accurately evaluate the the validity of the facade that we're looking at when it's not
original to the property? It's not the historic nature of it. I would argue that those elements, those ornamental elements that go around the top, Yeah. Certainly the pitch of the roof, the roof style maybe, right? But not the material and not the facade that I'm
looking at. So that if you if you're replicating it, you we're being asked that you have to replicate that. >> Yeah, that's not the case though how that's not how it works in historic preservation. So they put the historic preservation,
>> but is that how it works in the deed? So the deeds set up because they with the intent of follow of of basically res keeping the house consistent with the what they call the restoration
period which is the time of the home being constructed which is like the late 1800s. And so even though there might be modern windows from various periods in it, the intent of having a historic preservation
deed is for any updates done to the house or any changes to try to stay closer to the look from the the restoration period of the 1860s. So, what would normally happen is a
homeowner would come to us, and we've had this happen a lot. We've had people come to us where they found three different forms of sighting, and they say, "We don't know what to do. We have all these sidings." Um, and so what we usually do is we ask them to take the siding off and inspect the original
cedar uh clapboard on that's on the side. If it's not been damaged or and it's not repairable, then they usually replace it with a material that we have in our design guidelines. >> But that's that's a home that's located
in the historic district. >> What I'm asking for is what we're supposed to be responsible for for a yes or no up here is how we're supposed to evaluate the language within the deed restriction as it applies to the facade of the home. And what I'm struggling
with is like which facade am I looking at? I'm not looking at >> Can I ask a question behind the problem? >> Any historic structure when you're looking at has multiple layers of history that's been applied to it, taken away, put back. And [clears throat] you
have to define what the period is that you're going to restore the structure to. That requires a survey. It requires research to be done after which has been done to determine what the most appropriate restoration period is for
that structure. So that would be the number one thing to do and to determine what are the appropriate renovation features to incorporate into that historic preservation. >> I have a two-part question. one, if we
made that survey part of the terms and conditions, A, would that be acceptable to the HPC? And B, do you think if there was that survey and we found the appropriate period that we're looking to replicate and the homeowner is willing to build
that replication, would that or what's there today be closer to historic? >> It would be better. >> I would think so. I mean number one there's my answer >> to whatever
we find it to be then a total that's total tear because >> right >> I I would I would submit and don't want to say >> I would submit that >> if we were to agree to a term condition
that required a historic replica quote unquote we would need to determine that what that should be a replica of anyway. And so that survey would need to be done to determine what that is. >> I I completely agree with that. I'd
argue that the drawings I've seen are probably better looking than what's out there today. [clears throat] However, but a agree agree and that's why I think if we had the survey as part of the terms and conditions and we can all agree that we're trying to replicate a particular period and the homeowner
would agree to whatever those particular nuances are. It answers our question. The the only other thing though I would say is that there's there's language in these terms and conditions that is just so vague um it would have to come out
and it says that it would it would use materials that are consistent with historic character. I have absolutely no idea what that means >> but we're going to work on the terms and conditions in a separate session. This is not to figure out the terms and conditions and and the homeowner has already
>> you're asking us about what you agree in terms of terms and conditions. What I'm saying is can't say consistent with historic character. It should be >> that they submit an application into HBC that would be part of the process part of the survey along with the survey and
also when they do when you do a replica >> you can't just it's not always all new. The secretary of interior always says you still need to use anything that is not too bad. So, like let's say there are shutters on this house that are
still wood that still operate and still work. If you build a replica, you have to still use those shutters. So, you have to look at anything on the facade that's still salvageable and still use that. Which is why one might argue
that's a lot of work because not only are you going and building a new house up and you're having to make it so detailed that it's replicating the same facade, but you also have to look at the old house and take all the pieces off and inspect every single piece on the
facade and put it and fix it and put it back into the new design. >> But that's that's not what you [laughter] >> that's that's not what we just sort of said, right? And I think it sounds like there may be a difference of opinion at that table, but I think my point is the
goal here is to get to a spot where we're all working collaboratively together, right? Because I don't think what exists there today is beneficial to the community in any way, shape, or form. It needs attention. It needs love.
It has a homeowner that's willing to give it love. It's a question of how we're getting to that end. and the survey is the first step and the terms and conditions that you're reading there were I don't want to speak for the property owner the attorney are are
ideas of terms and conditions and Lisa even said when we started that we're not here to define those terms and conditions >> we're here to align on the fact that if we do get to a point where we allow the removal of the deed restriction then the next step would be identifying terms and
conditions some of which are going to be the survey whether we're keeping two of the 16 shutters or one of the 16 shutter like certain [laughter] there may be no shutters it's a bad example but getting into those details would be a separate
discussion >> I would also just like to say that I believe a lot of the rationale if you will for demolishing the building are based on structural
issues. Um that at least in my mind has not been clearly shown to be um uncorrectable. >> That would be public comment, right? >> Yeah, >> that would be during public comment. Yeah.
>> Okay. Did you say >> I can read the letter? >> I just want to tell you first of all that none of this has been lost for me. Um I appreciate the education that you have attempted to give us and I appreciate your sticking with a project
that has um a lot of complicated aspects to it. I I still think that language is very important to to you know to write up what we are here and saying um I I think I would actually have liked you to to mention those three Rs. Is it three
or four Rs? Rehabilitation preservation all fall under that preservation umbrella. So preservation is if you have something rehabilitation and restoration are very
similar. Um but um one of them I think is you know more for like if you're um using a building in a different way then you're doing um rehabilitation as where you're changing like the use of the
building. So this is not so restoration is really what we're recommending. Um and those are the guidelines. Um, and in the in the spirit of restoration, I think that our attorney's question um is extremely
relevant here with regards to the concept of a facade and what's within the facade, right? The building, the actual home, >> right? The actual home. So, the facade and then the actual home. And this deed
seems to be addressing just the facade, >> not the interior of the home. Also, [clears throat] yeah, and if you look in the handout I gave you guys under the Secretary of the Interior, it lists all of those items that are kind of that they consider part
of the facade. And so, you see there's a lot of [laughter] different items and that includes um you know, it's all the details. I listed it out in those handouts for you. And so there's a couple bullets on interior. Um, and you would just not use
those obviously, but the rest are all the things that they would they have guidelines for on how to restore >> part of the foundation. Actually
we're talking about specifically the exterior surfaces of the building subject to this easement parenthesis of the sides extent from the soil line to the highest point of the building including its roof chimneys and other
pertinances. Correct. >> So that's a little different than the secretary standards because the secretary says go down below the soil also. So we have to, you know, if if we're going to talk about this deed and trying to honor this deed, then we have to really go by the language that it's providing us as a as a guide. Um, so so
looking at the soil upwards, that would be the facade. And and if I'm correct, is it like two sides of the facade or is it all of the facade? >> Four sides. >> Four sides. All four sides. Okay. So, um, you were saying that it's going to
be really hard to preserve a facade without preserving some of the interior. >> Yeah. I mean, I mean, I guess they can if they want to demolish every like all four sides of the I mean all the entire
interior and somehow figure out a way to keep the facade. >> Well, the implications obviously you have windows located in the facade. So windows are gonna [laughter] placement of windows is going to to some degree dictate the layout of the rooms inside
the building. You're not going to put a wall in the middle of a window. So there's going to be some, you know, that's going to dictate some layout. But in terms of the requirement to maintain the layout of the building as it is right now internally
and how big the kitchen is, how big the dining room is, where the bathrooms, that is not something that's protected, >> but but if I would just say that the um you know the applicants has provided prints sort of, you know, plan of what
they want to do and it looks like they're trying to honor and preserve the external, right, with the windows and all of question is the placement of all those things. They're looking to to match what is currently there.
But I believe that in you know in your terms the HPC terms and in the historical terms that is not enough to be considered historic. It is considered a replica and a replica is not historic. question here. Um, so
this is caught up in the standard scientist and I like guidelines, you know, things, [laughter] but I really appreciate your um, you know, your your view and you know, I'm trying to listen to both sides here and um, as I said, we have two opposing
views and we want and I know you guys want just like um, you know, life wants a safe and healthy home. How do we get there? Mhm. >> We hear your side, we hear the other side. Um, but the thing, so I, as I, you know, has heard, we're
not experts in this, but you have led us to a place where there are the standards. The standards, they they really, what I was so surprised at when I've talked to homeowners that have historic homes, I'm just really amazed at how much you can do to a historic
home. I thought, "Oh my gosh, you have this particular wood that's only found in 1860. You have to replace that particular wood." You don't have to do that. And so that's kind of what made me feel a little bit better about the whole
idea of um you know, the restoration. Um so like you know this the standard seem to provide many opportunities to remove, replace, repair, recreate the historical home. Um, and that's the
that's the thing that kind of, you know, puts me a little bit more at ease about the idea. Um, you know, I'm still listening to the reconstruction idea. I'm still listening to the restoration idea. But, um, you know, and it says, "A feature too deteriorated to repair during the restoration period can be
replaced by using the physical evidence as a mode to reproduce the feature. If we don't even have what is there, how do we replace it?" Like so as you saying the surveys certainly very important so um you know maybe we get the survey and
none of this stuff can be replaced I don't know we don't know this so we would be making this decision to to raise a phone and we don't even have a lot of the information we don't know if some of this stuff can be restored or
you know if we just sit here and say yes so um you know I don't know is that possible do have in terms of conditions that we need a survey. We need to decide whether any of this can be um you know uh restored and um I don't know I don't
know I I don't know whether that can be part of the terms and conditions or we have to say we're going to demolish this and then there are certain terms and conditions on how to rebuild. I I don't understand that part >> and and the way we have frame this is it's going to be it's a two-step
process. First step is are there exceptional circumstances that warrant allowing of the raising in the size. Next if so that's first question are
there acceptable circumstances. The next question is, [clears throat] and this is what for a later date, under what terms and conditions are they going to be allowed to recreate the structure, however you want to define that. And
there are no limits, as I see it, on terms and conditions you can apply. You can listen to both sides. They both given you their ideas of what those terms and conditions ought to start to look like. But the way this ordinance is framed, um, does not take effect. Other
words, they don't have the right to tear down the building until you come up with those terms and conditions and adopt resolution. >> So like I mean can we find out whether we can remove, replace, repair and recreate? I mean that's >> it's going to be I mean
>> I I disagree [laughter] I disagree with HBC. I to me I read this it's up to you to determine the terms and conditions. You are not wed to particular terms and conditions. The extent you think you
ought to follow the secretary of interior guidelines for the interior that's your decision for the facades that's your decision but that's decision for >> but that the deed says in consultation
with agency we we need to hear what they have to say. consultation is you're obligated to get their input. It's your decision, >> but also provision C of the deed says that any work on the facade needs to go
by the secretary interior. >> Yeah, see I disagree with there. Um I think it is a standard that can be but I to me preempts. So if they make a decision that the building can be
demolished um building can be demolished based on the standards that we've all talked about then it is recreated or rebuilt based on the terms and conditions that committee needs advice.
I think the biggest challenge though for our township committee is thinking about that if that's how you interpret it that if you approve B it negates >> CER see guidelines >> but but I'm just saying in terms of B if
you if you move forward with B and it negates C then you're essentially legally giving a part launch to anything getting built And that sets a precedent. >> Okay. No, it doesn't [laughter]
cut much. It is within the due consideration of the governing body of the township, the [clears throat] body that owns the deed to determine what the uh considerations ought to be, what the conditions ought to be. So, it's not
card. It's within their discretion consultation consult the ability to give them your opinions. >> Yeah. >> But they're not bound by >> and I would say they're not bound by see.
So then I think that for our township committee again what you mentioned I mean you just have to really think through what kind of precedent you're setting here knowing that this structure is it's not even I mean think about all the people in our historic district who
own houses and we all know that there are other structures in this town that are not always being maintained have more like those structures are regulated by ordinance Right. They they have been through a historic
preservation process, but the commission recommends the town adopt ordinances declaring them to be historic structures or part of a historic district. So there are ordinances and laws that govern regulation of those structures as opposed to this one which is regulated
by this particular restrictions. And >> I think that I [laughter] think that almost needs to be said again. >> We're not that this is no way involvement of the historic district. Zero >> and what you what you as a commission
have oversight to and all of the ordinances and everything that's in place. We're not we're not touching any and making any precedent over that at all because that's it's to use your apples and oranges. They're two completely separate things and we're not
making any sort of judgment call on anything that happens within this historic district. That still is the exact same process. That's an application process. There's an ordinance. There's a design guidelines that have firmly been in place and have been defended. So what happens if we
have people in the historic district that start not maintaining the houses that start getting dilapidated and committee >> what do we do now? >> What do we do now? >> They're in violation of an ordinance.
It's the same process that you would go through now. You would issue them a violation, a code violation. That's no different than how we handle things today or you handle things today. that there's there's no stripping of
authority or changing how we manage that. [clears throat] And I think that that's again I I remember the point being made in April and I was struggling that because I I wasn't making the connection at all. This was solely on a
property outside of the historic district with a deed restriction on it that we had to evaluate. Yes or no? And again, I I I know it's not meant that way, but I haven't felt that your participation and opinion was an obligation for us to do. Like, I don't
feel that way about it because I'm I'm learning and that's why we're asking the questions. I I understand >> there's an obligation. >> It's an it's a legal obligation. I get that. But it's I just want to make I I haven't looked at it that way. Right. >> Sure. >> Yeah.
>> Okay. Fair enough. So, could I ask you a question more specifically? So, let's say um what would be an example that you might replace, repair, and recreate on on a facade? What would be an example? Like like if they tear it down, would they have to like or not tear it down
like like they have the building? What would what would be an example? If you were gonna um if you were gonna restore the like facade like you find that it's >> I would say you know windows and how
they would you know what kind of shape they're in how they would be replaced what kind of window would be used to replace those windows >> y >> and guy when you say windows you mean style right >> well
actually [clears throat] that's the easy if they're if they're, you know, 66, whatever they are. >> Yeah. >> Double home windows, they have to be replaced in time. And so look at what that means in today's world
because >> insulated lights single pane windows. I mean, there are things that obviously for a modern building, >> right? But the same thing would be true of things that are even behind the skin of it. I've been thinking of this out loud here. Um, you know, without a
survey, you just don't know. But for instance, the the actual framing of the building, what kind of framing is it? Is it balloon framing? It's probably balloon framing given its time. And it's not platform framing, which is what we would do today if we built that house.
So all of a sudden even if you demolished it and rebuilt it and kind you're not you're not kind. You've been framed entirely different. >> But that's not the facade because that's the question.
And so >> I'm still I'm struggling with this. I really am. I really am because I keep going inside the walls and I want to be outside the >> wall. But I look at the facade, >> right? >> So
you have to go back to the survey issue that you absolutely need to survey and document and there are reasons to do it no matter what. >> Yeah. Either situation. >> So if you demolish it, you still need to document it and have it you know, as part of the historical record.
>> Totally agree. >> The only way to know what you really can do and I would say even to the point of doing >> the survey determining what the options are for demolition versus repair and replacement, you might find out surprisingly that it would be less
expensive to repair and replace than to tear it down. >> Yeah. >> And so I think, you know, there needs to be a more in-depth exercise done than that has been done to date before final determinations are made. >> I think that's been the biggest problem
this entire process is that we are being brought in here to, you know, evaluate a property that we haven't even been into um that hasn't been surveyed um and we're working off of uh reports that were commissioned by the same people
that want to demolish it. It's very difficult for us to um provide terms and conditions and solutions when we haven't been as into the process. So, >> thank you very much. I think it's time.
[laughter] >> Yeah. >> Hold on. How are you? >> Great. How are you? >> So, just as a reminder, public comment is the same as our normal public comment. Public comment should be about the ordinance that we're discussing now.
If it's a separate public comment, we'll have an additional public comment once we close this session. And still Robert's rules are in effect and we'll be following and we have a three minute so you can just fast. >> Okay. I'm reading a letter submitted by
97 South Main Street. Um, I'm writing in response to the Patinic family's proposal to demolish the former Barkley farmhouse located at 147 Plains B Road in Cranberry. The house I currently reside in is the former Fiser farmhouse located 97 South Main. Although deed records less set at
the time uh of 1849 for the age of the home and examination by the Cranberries, one of Cranberry's leading historians, the late Don Joan brought that date of construction back to the late 1700s early 1800s. My wife John who is a
lifelong resident of Cranberry and I bought the home in 17 1982 from the estate [clears throat] of Pearly grandmother Martha Margaret Fisher. We purchased the home as is where we knew that we had to do some renovation but not the extent to which we had to. We wound up taking the entire
front part of the home down. It was interesting seeing a different construction method from posted to balloon. It was all replaced with new modern materials in addition to the outer walls walls being replaced. The balance of the inside home was gutted and replaced with new materials. The only things that were saved was the reedation of the home, original
floorboards, old stone foundation, and a few later period of fireplace mantles. My wife and I made a conscious decision to restore the home as best we could back to whatever to similar the way it looked back in the day because of the family ties to the home. It was a labor of love that we took on ourselves doing
a majority of the work ourselves. Not everyone would have done it, but we did. With respect to the cynics proposal to demolish the former Barkley farmhouse, I had the opportunity to tour the home to tour the home in 2021. It reminded me of my home when I first walked into it. It
has all the same features and same problems in my humble opinion as latent in the field. It could be fixed up as it stands, but at what cost, giving today's construction climate versus that of the 1980s. So for me, did I have did I save an old farmhouse from being demolished
or build a new farmhouse in the same spot using old materials? That is the question facing the pretend township here. As I see it, they have two options. Option one, find a licensed contractor that would provide a realistic price to fix it up as I did with my home using new historic
designated materials outside as necessary. or option two, final license contract to provide a realistic price to recreate the same home from the outside using historic designated new materials on the same footprint, not one inch bigger or smaller, same orientation,
using GPS mapping to locate all of boundary dimensions of the home. Additionally, salvaging all the hardwood floors and others items of significance, reusing them inside the home as can be done. All this new work would have to be done with the approvals of various boards conducting such approvals. Both
options will come with the dollar and time cost and that must be realistically priced out. From what I have seen presented so far that has not occurred and needs to be done quickly before a decision can be made to proceed in the in the fence of the township in this matter. every township [laughter]
committee for the past 20 years as I parrot respect by making various owners of properties fix up their homes. So 20 plus years of neglecting taken a toll on this home. I would recommend that township give the Virginia until the end
of January to get those proposals and at that point in time will have at least the information it needs to make a proper proper decision on that. Thank you for your time. >> Thank you. Thank you. You want me to submit this? [laughter]
>> Thank you. >> There's a signing sheet right there for everyone to sign in first. And after you sign in, then I'll begin the timer. And I won't cut into your time, but I know you sent a letter this afternoon and was forwarded to the council committee so they could get get a chance
to read your letter. Excellent. Then I won't go over everything in [clears throat] there. Um, >> when you're ready, >> I'm ready. >> Okay, here you go. >> Um, but the the [clears throat] question that needs to be answered, >> introduce yourself. I'm sorry. And [laughter] tell us who you represent.
It's Robert Smallitch Space Law Firm on behalf of the Cranberry Historical Preservation Society. Um the question that we are considering that that the town committee is considering today is whether or not this exceptional circumstances standard has
been met and the two structural engineer reports were commissioned by the homeowner. They are written to answer the question can this building be torn down. It doesn't answer the question of whether it can be preserved. And even in
trying to establish this case of can the building be torn down, they they they established that the building can still be preserved, that it might be an expensive proposition, but but that possibility exists. Um I understand Mr.
has issues with his health. The question of whether or not there are the the lead paint can be abated. Um, if there are any other materials, mold as best, I think those were thrown around that those can be abated and and fixed
without a wholesale destruction of the building and and reconstruction and without as a result of that the exceptional circumstances standard has not been met because there has been no
act that was out of the ordinary. This is only the progression of time the deterior deterioration of the building and even though there are structural infirmities to the to the building it does not establish an exceptional circumstance that would allow for the
deed restriction to to be lifted. >> Thank you very much. Thank you. Hi, Linda Morgan. Um, the vice president of chips, but I'm also here as the homeowner of 28 Station Road.
My husband Dennis and I like to say that we are not owners, but caretakers of our almost 200year-old home on Station Road. We are the caretakers of what came before us as well as what comes ahead as the owners of this beautiful home. In the 10 years of owning our home, we have
had to do not only cosmetic but structural work as well and will need to continue maintenance as time goes on. For those who do not know, our home was moved across Route 130 to its current location in 1970 when the land was sold
to the Firestone Tiger Company. At the time, the home had significant structural damage from a fire spanning three stories, leaving a gaping hole in the roof. It contained asbestous, lead paint, and was uninhabitable. All utilities of the home were off as
well. It was also not considered to be located in the historical district. Yet at the time, the value of the home, not in monetary terms, was considered enough by the generation before me to relocate, renovate, and preserve the home and the
history it held and represented. Owning a historic home is a commitment to preservation and history and [clears throat] community, and I hope the committee takes all of this into consideration. Thank you. Steve Gosano, Prospect Street. So, I'm
here to respectfully urge you not to pass this ordinance and to uphold Cranberry's long-standing commit uh commitment to preservation. Tonight, the township committee's responsibility is straightforward. Enforce the legally binding historic deities that already
governs this property. The easement carries stronger restrictions than the historic district and was created precisely for situations like this. The township committee's role tonight is not to determine whether the house is historic. That question has
already been answered. It is. It is not to the township's role to decide whether the house is in good shape based on personal impressions. You must rely on the evidence and the professional reports in the record, including the owner's own engineering report, which
confirms the house is fully capable of restoration. Not it may be taken down. May is the word key right there. There are absolutely no exceptional circumstances present here to warrant a demolition. The idea that the owner's uh
own employees or or consultants can't uh evaluate the property because of safety is ridiculous. That's why liability insurance exists. It is not the township's role to create new legal compromises or frameworks outside the deed. You have fiduciary duty to enforce
what already exists. It is not the township's role to design renovation plans or weigh the personal circumstances of the owners. Following following the construct of the deed is not an unreasonable request and formally is not the township's role to pass this ordinance simply to shift
responsibility to the state. Cranberry's local preservation protections are strong stronger than the states and weakening them by punting them the issue towards them would undermine decades of deliberate local policy. The only question before you tonight is
whether the cranberry honors its own laws, commitments, and preservation values. Upholding the deed and easement protects not just this house, but the integrity of the entire preservation system that residents rely on. Please
allow the deed to stand as intended and to reaffirm cranberry's commitment to meaningful preservation. Let this ordinance die tonight. You don't even have to vote on it. Hey, [clears throat]
check out Hello township committee. I had the opportunity to walk through 147 I'm sorry. Oh, I'm sorry. Kevin Gosano 15 prospect. I had the opportunity to walk through 147 Plansboro Road several times in the
summer and fall of 2022 prior to the sales of the pretendics. At that time, the buildings on site had been stabilized from any infiltration and from the neglect they had seen since the township property. The condition of the house's foundation and overall structure
are consistent with what you'd expect from any historic home in Cranberry. I was able to walk through the entire house, including the attic and basement without any safety concerns. The Britics were fully aware when they purchased the property that the house was to be
preserved and even received a reduced price at the time of the sale for that reason and now they're just spending it on it turning. Shortly after the sale, I noticed that the asphalt roof on the out building is many times larger than the farmhouse got replaced. So far, I've heard no good
argument for why the farmhouse roof was neglected at that time. It's been three years. The selective maintenance on the property along with the selective testimony we keep hearing suggests the de easement has not been taken seriously by the protects or the township committee. The easement must be enforced
by the township and the roof must be replaced to prevent further damage. Cranberry is a unique town not just for its history and its inventory of wellpreserved historic houses but for the number of professionals who volunteer their time to protect what makes it so special. I encourage the
pretendics to work with CHPS HPC local historians and other professionals who have experience with historic houses. Restoring this farmhouse is more straightforward, way more affordable, and will deliver a property with greater character and value than any replica ever will. And by the way, you could
clearly see the house and details from the street. Having restored my own historic home, which was in far worse condition than this house during co and while taking care of my dying father, I know this farmhouse can absolutely be restored
into a beautiful family home. I took mine down to the studs. I uncovered the facades aluminum side and off and I fixed the structure from the from with inside. I even picked the house up off the foundation. They don't have to do that. There's there's this way I
feel like you guys just don't know what you're talking about. I strongly encourage the township community to deny the demolition of this historic farmhouse. The language is indeed is unambiguous. All the work has already been done to legally protect the house. So why would
you undo that? All you have to do is say no to what was clearly continued demolition by neglect. Do not squander the countless volunteer hours and investment of millions of taxpayer dollars, which we're still paying for tonight with attorneys and everything. that go that went into protecting this
irreplaceable piece of primary history. The town hall we're sitting in tonight along with many other historic buildings were almost demolished using similar frivolous arguments. >> Sorry, I can't do that. We don't see time.
>> We don't see I don't see it. [clears throat] But Jackson, 52 Petty Road. My first time in that house was in 1973. My wife grew up in the house. Her father
was born in the house. At that time, um, Barkclays owned it. We all know that. And one of the problems that this poor house had was that they had an a a homeowner who was nowhere I mean they didn't want
to have anything to do with the house. They were renting the farm. The house was just a part of the farm. So my in-laws lived in the house. Now they lived in it. Some miscellaneous things that need to be done. They just went ahead and did because didn't really
want to be bothered. There was a big fight. I remember back, well, not a big fight, but there were some issues about getting a new roof back then. They wouldn't do it until they did started leaking. You drop a marble on the kitchen floor and watch it roll into
the corner. I mean, I I can't tell you how many times I was personally fixing leaks in the h in the plumbing in the house because I don't ever remember the front door opening because the house I [laughter]
think it open they finally got it open when my in-laws moved out. Um I don't think the f I don't ever remember the fireplaces being used or even open. It's um I just I the facade I can see
the facade but the basement the basement's all it's a dirt floor. How do you I mean the I just don't get it anyway. >> Thank you. >> Good luck. [laughter] >> Thanksbody.
Susan Ryan Street. >> Just sign in for me too. Susan, please. >> Thank you. Okay. Ready? >> Sure. >> Ryan, your prospect, member of HBC. Uh, I spoke to you back in April about the need for the
condition survey that the historical survey about all the features, which I'm very happy to hear a lot about tonight. So, thank you. Um, when I was looking up the start time for tonight's meeting, I went to the Cranberry Township website
and a um, paragraph popped up right when I opened it. So, I want to read it to you as a reminder that seems very pertinent. It sets Cranberry is one of the oldest towns in New Jersey, and the preservation of
Cranberry's historic character can be attributed to the concerns and efforts of its residents, past and present. That's it. Thank you. Can you sign in please?
>> This is the [laughter] rest of Kevin's letter. The town hall we are sitting in tonight along with many other historic buildings were almost demolished using similar frivolous arguments. Please preserve the safeguards pre the previous
committees and volunteers thoughtfully established. Every candidate who runs for township committee says they love primary history. They care about historic preservation. Now your opportunity to prove it. The headlines write themselves. Premier Township
Committee votes to tear down another historic house. Please do not let that be the legacy of this committee. >> Okay, seeing none, we're going to close public session. I'm just I'm just turning I'm turning it off.
Make sure I don't hurt sound. [clears throat] I think it's appropriate for everyone on the TC to kind of summarize their thoughts and any further questions that we have and
proceed. I'll start. I'll finish. It's up to you guys how you want to handle. Um, I I struggle again, I'm kind of similar to Barbara in this perspective is I very
fact-based when we make a decision, which is why I'm asking these questions about the terms that we're using and that we're using them correctly and if if it's meant to it's not meant to agitate anybody, but in order to evaluate the the decision that's before
us, I think it's really important that we make sure that we have clarity on things. Is it is it the farm that's registered? Is it the house that's registered? Is it the facade? What's part of the facade? Are we restoring, rebuilding? I'm asking all this because it that's what we have to do. That's why
we're consulting with HPC is to garner this information and make sure that we're reading the deed and how we're supposed to interpret what the decision that we need to make. So, if those questions were annoying or anything, I
just want everyone to understand why I'm asking the questions because I I struggle with what it is that we are looking to preserve. If it's the facade of the outside of a home, I tooured that home to say that there weren't safety
concerns within that home when I had to make a jump with a massive stair that was missing going down to the basement that you could not get up from. There's there's an physical missing step in the middle of that staircase. Right? So, I
was not comfortable inside that house. But I'm not an expert. I'm not a historian. I'm I can't tell you if I lick the paint off that wall if there was lead in it. I wouldn't advise it, but that's not what we've been asked to evaluate. We've been asked to evaluate
the the deed. If there's exceptional circumstances that we feel that the house is structurally unsafe or there's been such disrepair to it that it's it's it it's not worth um restoring, if I'm
using the term correctly. I just want to make like I believe I am. >> Yes. >> Right. >> So, right. And if we're talking about physically protecting the outside, I firmly agree that a survey of the facade
should take place. And if that survey comes back to say that their parts of the facade, whether it's the ornamental elements, the architectural elements on the top are still okay and they can be preserved and they can or if they need
to be recreated, all of that. If if that flushes out in the survey and all we're doing is then putting that facade back on to a new structure, I don't see the harm in doing that. I
don't see how we're we're not protecting the integrity of the period of which the house was we've decided that we want to restore it to because it when I'm being I'm interpreting it as once I step in that building that that's not we're
being what we're being asked to evaluate. That's not what we're asking anyone to consult on. We're not asking if we believe the dirt in the basement is historic or not. That's not what we're here to evaluate. And I I can't get off that point of this is just the
outside of a home that we want to make sure that we're preserving the the the intent of the architecture of the error that we decide that this house should be preserved in. I that's that's my interpretation of
what it is that we need to do here. I don't believe that. Again, of course, we want a safe home to for somebody to live in. That goes without saying to any house in this this town regardless of what its circa is. So again, if if I'm
incorrect and our advice is been given at how to read this deed restriction, I'm not trying to punt and take away Shipo or anybody else how they make their decisions. We were advised that because we hold the deed, the decision starts with us. And when it comes to the
terms and conditions that were provided by the property owner, there's words in there like may, like may include, no, they shall include. So those are the types of things that I believe that we need to work on when it comes to terms and conditions and be very specific.
This if you're going to rebuild a foundation of this house, it shouldn't be one millimeter bigger or smaller. and permits won't shouldn't be even provided if if that can't be attested to the orientation should be exactly the same.
There are processes that we can put in place and they're they could be punitive if the foundation is is reconstructed and it's not the way that we have specified in it that can that foundation gets torn up again and you can report it. like there are terms and conditions
that we can put in place here to make sure that the advice that we've received and the consultation that we've received from HPC and some of the concerns from our public, we can address them and we can we can make sure that they're covered. And in my opinion, this is much
more than previous TCs have done. The original TC that put this deed restriction in, I get I agree with that. We shouldn't say that they they spent tire tireless hours doing that. The the historical preservation society that was in place then, you know, did the same
thing. I'm not discounting that work, but where's the enforcement been, right? So, we're at a point where we've been asked to do it. We have a legal obligation to respond to that. And I believe that that's what we're doing here tonight. I believe that the yes,
if it's a yes tonight, that is to move on to the hard work. And that hard work is we make very specific conditions of which the property owner either agrees to or we don't move to a resolution to
proceed. And that's where the hard work is. And that should still continue to be collaborative. And we should be looking at experts and we should be ma mandating. We were asked as a follow-up. The property owner was asked as a follow-up from the April meeting to get a historic engineering report and a
survey done. That was not done. So this survey needs to be part of it going forward because without that you're not going to be able to create legitimate terms and conditions that are going to satisfy this committee.
So again, if I'm asking for those terms to be defined for us a little bit more in detail because I didn't understand them. I'm in my mind I'm clearly focused on the facade of the house. I believe that's what our charge was for this for
this. >> I think that's all I have. >> What >> I can right So I think in spirit um American might I agree um generally I think
I'll add two bits right so first I don't think I've heard much more today over the last two months or not since our April working session I think we had the same questions about facade and understanding facade I think we probably
took our eyes off of this ball there was bigger ball floating around that that I think we took our eyes off of this to be perfectly frank. U the facade point is completely valid. I agree with it. I thought I mentioned in April that's where it was. I actually disagree to
some extent that um there is no exceptional circumstance. I think there is an exceptional circumstance. I think the property has not been maintained in decades. And in most cases, houses that have not been maintained in decades.
That that doesn't happen. A a normal circumstance is proper maintenance done on a property, which is why we have maintenance um ordinances, right? We don't always enforce them, especially in this case while we owned it as a township, while other owners have owned
it. I think 20, 30, however many years since there has been no construction permits on this home, I think it's an exceptional circumstance to not touch a home in 30 years. I I just I do um I
agree that this yes doesn't mean somebody's driving a bulldozer on Wednesday, right? And I don't want the community to think that's happening. That is not happening. This is a yes to move forward with the process. So it doesn't sit here again for another
year, two years, five years, 10 years, and to the point some some comments where we will have more lawyers fees and there will be more lawsuits from either side and there probably still will be. We're all aware of that possibly and
probably happening. But I'm tired of sitting around and not doing things. I think this is a step in the in the process. And if we do it right, we have an opportunity to make sure it's done properly for the community.
That's me. I think um speaking as someone who owns an 1850 home when I went and looked at farm or the house um with the idea that looking at the facade I think that there's a disconnect between what HPC
thinks is out there and what they visualize that house should look like because from what I saw there's nothing left. You've got asphalt siding, none of the original windows, none of the architectural details. So, I think the survey is actually a really good idea
>> because let's get all of this on the paper so we can see what's actually there. But right now, we're talking about an abstract idea of what that house should look like. Um, and we don't have that, right? Because from what I saw, it's not there. Um, structurally, walking up to the house, you could see
the cracks in the foundation. You could see that the house was higher on one side, lower on the other. all the things that Bud referenced. So, I think that structurally, you know, I don't think there's any doubt about the the quality of the existing house. What we don't
know is is the facade. What I saw is not there, but I think we need to catalog it and and and so that we all can see we're all on the same page. We're not talking about, you know, architectural features that are just no longer there. So, I think it's I'm a yes, but I think that
um with the caveat of given the survey then take that next step. [clears throat] >> Well, this certainly is not an easy decision and uh we're all neighbors and we all want the
best I think for cranberry but our our ideas are different. Um, you know, one recommends restoration and another one reconstruction. Um, you know, the historic easement states that we
need to work in consultation with the HPC. One of the things that HPC is saying, which we haven't gotten yet, is the information to make a proper decision, and that is the survey.
So, we're missing information and if we say yes or no, it's without the proper information. Um, you know, the thing that I do appreciate with HBC is they're looking at this 1860
farmhouse that's been in existence for how long now? Um, you know, a long time. and um you know just with a strike of a pen that house could possibly go down. So I think we do need to take our time
and we do need to put in the hours and we do need to have these discussions. Um what I do appreciate with agency is that they're looking at it holistically. They're not just looking at the house. Okay? They're looking at it that there's
a place for it in the master plan. People have worked endlessly hours, me included, you know, in these master plans. There's a reason why it's put in there. You know, I used to scoff like when I had to do the trees, like when we
were looking at um putting in trees, I was like, vistas, vistas, just put a tree on that road. I mean, that, you know, what's so big deal about vistas? Vistas are important for the character of our town. >> [clears throat] >> So that vista, the transition from the
village to the farmhouse and that's why this easement is put on this house. It's one of the first farm houses that when you leave the village it's there. Um you know it could is it a remake or is it a real meal house? I think there's
an importance for it to be real. I mean for it to be uh you know with as much old material as possible. Um, it's listed on the New Jersey historic registry. Okay, we have an argument with the farm or the house. I got that today for the first time. Thank you for
pointing that out. Um, you know, it does add to the character of the historic village and the connection to farming. Uh, you know, um, and then we have on the other side, um, you know, we hear Mike, his lawyer, sorry.
Um, okay. um you know and they recommend reconstruction but to me I that's what I hear there are points in there um in their you know this is what I see in there
that it is possible to restore parts of it and they do suggest ways to restore um and to have that uh structural integrity there Um anyway, as I keep saying, we both want
you to have a comfortable and safe house. Uh in its current condition, we know this is not attainable. Um but I do believe, you know, as we've heard, and I I don't live in a historic home, you know, you guys do. So, I had
to go, you know, and and speak to people and, you know, and forgive me if I'm longwinded, but this house has been there a long time, and I just want to respect it. Um, you know, other people have very low basement ceilings and a partial dirt floor basement and a Boeing front foundation wall. They deal with
and correct those issues. We don't tear our homes homes down and we don't even have a deed restriction. This is from a letter that we received. We have lived here for 40 years and have rebuilt our porches and built in gutters. That is what people do who live and love these homes in Cranberry.
Um, so that's one thing. Another thing is, you know, Congressman Michael Papis wrote, and this is another um email, and I know it's not during public comment, but I'm gonna I'm gonna voice the people who actually worked on um you know, on
historic that they contribute to the historic nature of Cranberry. Um Michael Path was congressman. In conclusion, the people of Cranberry have made an investment in the future by preserving the past. Not only do they share their history, their landmarks, and their
stories, and they share their values. 20 years, 28 years later, Cranberry residents will spend countless volunteer hours to continue that legacy. I mean, we all went to I mean, I went to the Cranberry um tea. That house wouldn't have been there if it wasn't um wasn't
restored. The museum wouldn't be there. Um one is asking, will you stand up and in a strong voice cast a vote to oppose the ordinance for the demolition of the house? So, in a long-winded way, I I just really want us to look holistically
like HBC does. And it's not just, you know, the tearing like it's it's it's the fabric of cranberry and that's that's I think that's where it so I want to thank all for staying this
long and attention deserves. I I have I still don't have the clarity I think that I that I need. And when we're talking about a survey that will provide information, I think I feel like our process today is a little premature. [clears throat] I'm not um I
I'm not able to make a definitive answer or decision in in a matter that I thought that I could make a while ago. And that's because I have given it its time and given it its research. And um I want to see that man in a house in Cranberry.
I want him to live here. and I want you to be happy here. But I cannot ignore the deed restriction. I cannot ignore the fact that we are playing with has has the conditions been met or not. And I'm not clear on that u on that space
yet either. And so I sit very confused. Thank you. any further comment? >> Nope. >> So before calling ahead, um I just I just do want to note I I thank the public for their public comments. Um,
and I I I do appreciate the strong words of following um the de restriction and I do appreciate um you know um coming up and I do appreciate Linda Morgan trying to explain what you know the love and care of an old home and the
character and craftsmanship that preserve if you preserve this old of this uh 1860. I want to be very clear and get assurances of what a yes or a no means for us so that we understand.
>> I appreciate that as well. So the way the ordinance is structured just go to the end. You got the whereas clauses which set the stage [laughter] in the background and the two operative paragraphs we have
or gain the project committee for 10 cents [laughter] land company LLC demolishing and reconstructing the farmhouse located designated block 23 1201 on the
cranberry tax map 147 road upon such reasonable terms and conditions as a judge committee shall hereafter deem advisable. We have further that this ordinance shall not become effective unless and
until township committee adopts such terms and conditions of resolution the township committ. So, and going back to the D, the [clears throat] D says that if you do find exceptional circumstances
um that you can allow demolition, removal or raising sides of the building upon such reasonable concerns and conditions as a committee would be advisable. If you vote yes, this is the first step
in the process. The second step would be to consider what are reasonable terms and conditions at another meeting at some future date and adopt a resolution adopting those reasonable terms and conditions.
This ordinance does not allow any activity unless or until you do that. So, uh, this is step one and what is designated [laughter] as a two-step process. And then just to clarify,
if we vote no, we're essentially voting to go backwards, do nothing till some another foreseeable date to then go back to writing the ordinance
again, having this process again. Right. So, so we're essentially undoing the last meeting and I presume the homeowner will continue down the path of requesting us, right? Because essentially the request
has come through, we can either say yes and continue the process of the request or we can say no. If we say no, essentially we stop until the homeowner takes another step and either asks us to do the exact same thing again or takes
legal action. Those are my those are the only essentially three paths that I can see. >> If you say no, it stops the process. >> Right. Okay. And and to confirm, yes means we proceed
with taking action. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes means we move forward to define the terms and conditions. As an example, I'm just playing this out. Our first term and condition that we
want met is a fully executed survey of the inventory of the exterior facade of the property. >> Yes. >> And when we receive that survey,
I would assume that that would then help us determine next steps in terms of further terms and conditions. Is that a fair thing to say? I want to make sure that I understand that my by voting yes,
I'm in favor of getting more information. So like Aman, I'm less confused. Right. >> You you control the process, >> right? >> You control the process. They have terms and conditions which are going to be acceptable to you. So that whatever
happens, whichever the RS happens, um it is done in a way that you find acceptable >> and that process can be iterative. Surveys first, we receive the survey, then lay down more terms and conditions, etc. Thank you.
>> What I disagree with is you're saying that we're doing nothing. >> No, >> and that's okay. We can disagree. >> Restore the house according to the standard. That's the
so I mean there there is action in that on how to take action. >> I disagree. >> Maybe maybe Steve you can vote for no what does that mean for this? What what is going to be enforced on this
>> the status quo? If you say no, the status quo exist and you could decide at some point you want to enforce the terms requireing of the
So that's another action that's an resources don't take action on the ordinance um and we ask for a survey etc and then revisit this ordinance. Is that possible action too?
>> It's possible action this kills this information that is a possibility. I'm sorry. That's a possibility that we need to kind of flush out and discuss >> your microphone. >> Oh, I'm so sorry. Thank you. Thank you.
Thank you. Um that is a path that we need to legitimately discuss that it if if we vote no and we and we need the property owner to
understand that a path forward, not litigation hopefully and and not a do nothing strategy or going back to the status quo is just not in anybody's best interest. That just is what's been done for 21 years now, right? If we vote no
with an explicit plan that we want this survey done in order to reintroduce the ordinance next year, that's that is a viable option or one that we should be discussing or you
say yay or yes or no to that. I'm not looking for applause. I'm looking for feedback from the township committee. We're missing information is where I feel to make a proper >> to just kind of flush through that. No, with >> yes.
>> Yeah, I would ask for permission to speak right now just for a little bit clarification for voting on but I understand close public comment but I am the attorney record so I will leave that decision up to you. >> This this is for the discussion about the committee. >> Okay.
Is is there any opportunity for the applicant at this point and HPC to communicate to to also educate themselves on what their options are as this survey becomes part of the information that we have?
>> I'll I'll be perfectly my goal here is to have us take action. >> Yeah. >> No is going to make this process drag out longer and longer. If we vote yes and a survey is the first step in the
process and it forces the homeowner and HBC and this TC to take action in the near term, then everybody gets a resolution of this issue sooner. If we vote no, it's going to drag. I'm just I
can see it already. >> Y We had a work session in April. >> It was four hours. It takes eight hours, however many hours it takes to flesh out an application and bring out a resolution. I think that's that's what we were elected to do. And
so for me, I I sit here and I say to myself, I think I would like to be able to process this in a work session so that it isn't, you know, I feel like I have a gun in my head. I do. >> You don't. >> You don't. >> Once again, the house is old60 years
old. I mean, so what if it would take a couple more months potentially to get to more information or a couple more decades? That's what I have. >> I look at the the yes
in again that that's why I asked the initial question. The yes moves it forward. >> Yeah. It doesn't if we cannot agree on terms and conditions then you never put the ordinance through. Is that correct?
>> Right. >> The ordinance is not effective unless or until there are terms and conditions. >> No. >> It's almost a no. >> It is. That's what I'm saying. It's it's almost not it's not a no forward. It's a
yes, but to figure out if there are terms and conditions. And I understand HPC's perspective of it's hard for me to think about a terms and conditions when we're we're against what you're saying yes to. But you they at least put in the
work of saying, "Yeah, first and foremost, get a survey done. Get something that actually we we can do." Which again, I don't I'm with Rob on this. I don't really feel I've I've learned a ton more. No, >> I've read it all like three times and
I've I've done the work of reading all of this material and listening to what everyone's saying. [snorts] >> And I also believe that if I'm hopeful that the parties who are listening to us speak today, who understand that we're
doing this in an effort to do it right, could prevent us from some level of future litigation as fiduciary responsibilities in this town. and that the terms and conditions that we set for work with continue to be collaborative between HPC and the
property owner where again we've said if you can take it all the way down to the studs and if if if that is something that we say is okay and we and the property owner understands why that's okay then that's a starting place for us
to build up those terms and conditions now however long that takes I agree with We don't have a gun to our head in how long we have to come up with terms and conditions that we can potentially look at making a compromise. I mean,
reasonable timeline, right? You know, I mean, I'm not saying that we put a deadline on that today. I don't know how long a survey takes, but if we're saying it's mandated that we get a survey as a starting point, that takes as long as it takes. >> Yep. And if we right out of the gate
have a property owner that's refusing to do the survey, we haven't lost anything. We're done. We don't move the ordinance forward and we don't do it. >> So, mayor, can you correct me if I'm wrong? The idea of taking a house down to its studs is is in the spirit of restoration, which means that we are not
at this point demolishing by by neglect. >> Right? So, that's why how can you vote yes if we're if the survey says this can be restored? >> But I don't know what the survey says. That's what I'm saying. We don't have a survey. We both know that what what I'm
saying is if we do a survey, we're we're I'm not saying forcing the property owner. We're giving the property owner the ability to start to work on our terms and conditions. In order to create those terms and conditions, we're asking for a survey. It's our first term. It's
our first condition. >> The survey isn't to determine historic. the survey to determine the period of restoration >> and to take and document the exterior of the home condition but it's not to determine it can be with
knowledge that it will be that is what this >> no it cannot [laughter] be raised until we take further action >> but the ordinance is allowing it to be demolished >> right that's what we're saying yes it will be demolished
No, >> no, >> that's not healthy, >> Steve. We need help because I'm [laughter] saying that if you say yes, your next your next part of this process is to come up with terms and conditions and only and when we agree on those
terms and conditions as a TC, you have to put in the resolution >> only and when. But if you're voting yes to demolish it, you're voting yes, right, to demolish it. >> You're voting to demolish it. Let answer >> only upon terms and conditions.
>> Right. Upon those terms and conditions, correct? >> So you have to come up with the terms and conditions in order to demolish it, >> which is the next step, >> right? >> No. And not to demolish it. It's to lift the deed restriction. We're not voting to demolish anything.
>> We're voting to lift the deed restriction. You have to what's Can you read the title of the ordinance again? [clears throat] reconstruct the farmhouse building. That's what we
would be voting on >> such reasons and conditions, >> right? >> You can't just read headlines. That's that's how we get into trouble in >> building upon [laughter] such reasonable terms and conditions. So we have to create the terms and
conditions to raise and reconstruction. I don't feel personally prepared to to raise and reconstruct. I don't >> Yeah, we need you have to tell me when
you get the phone call. That's >> can't explain your vote when we get to our vote. No, because we were I mean Barbara's talking about something that was mentioned just as you know to me at least just as the meeting was started that we could decide to reintroduce this at a later date and maybe at that later
date we would have these conditions solid so that we are not sitting here saying if and what but whatever all this stuff or that particular survey that we're saying we can't then go do the rest of the terms and conditions >> then you have to have no and then they can reintroduce next year. So it has to
be a no in order to be read which is which is different which is different than what I what was suggested. Yes. Yes. It was it's very different. >> You don't get emotion. I mean this could just die without emotion.
>> But again >> it's already here here's here's my here's my >> challenge with it. >> Microphone I think [laughter] my >> I know my mic.
It's late. [laughter] >> My my fear of the no is uh what what makes it what's the next step >> to get the survey?
>> No. But how how can we how do you do that? If he wants the house move forward in any direction, whether it's reconstruction or restoration, we need a survey to determine what is like to actually do this ordinance
>> or litigation >> or litigation. How about the survey? So, it sounds a lot cheaper than litigation. >> That's not >> That's not up to us. 1025. I understand
but that's that's not that's litigating is not not up to us. >> So it's it's by in my perspective saying saying yes. This is my perspective. If we say yes, we're at least moving it
forward to come to some agreement on some things that will help us get to reasonable terms and conditions that we can see if there is some level of compromise between the council and the consulting work that we have gotten from HBC. If they're saying you're going to
take something down to the studs, we can't determine if the property owner may or may not be amicable to that. They may say that they're amicable to that and that inadvertently you're moving toward a restoration versus a dem something something being demolished, but we're not going to get there by just
saying no, we're just going to go to court. >> I don't know about that. But I the ordinance says raised. So if we say yes, we're that house raised and the ordinance. So, we need to take a roll. Are we
ready? Because we understand there's just one. We don't this explainer. >> Okay. So, we're moving on. >> Am I moving on to roll call? >> Wait, that was before everything started. But again, there's no guarantee that
we're going to get a survey done. We vote no. There's nothing that we can no trigger that we can pull to say you have to now get a survey done. >> But he does. >> Are we?
>> Yeah. >> Mayor, we're ready. Mr. Christopher, >> yes. >> Mrs. Eladawi, >> no. >> Dr. Rogers, >> no. >> Mr. Scott, >> yes. >> Mayor Caner, >> yes. >> Three days to nose. Thank you.
>> We're still She go We still public comment. >> We haven't our meeting. >> Yeah, we're still >> Yeah, we still >> I suggest not doing that. She knows we're still in the meeting, right? Do you understand that we're still in
the meeting? [laughter] Have some decorum for the meeting. Everybody, we're still in session. >> Okay. Do you want to move on? You could public comment, please. >> We're going to open the floor to general public comment not pertaining to this
ordinance. Is there any public comment? Seeing none, do we have any action items that we need to discuss and follow up on from previous in the meeting? >> Mike, >> I'm asking that we cancel the next meeting because we do not have any
business for our optional meeting. Is that okay? Because I'll be doing cancellation tomorrow. Our next meeting is Monday. I'm asking for it to be cancelled because no ordinance or any business can be on it. It's an optional meeting. Are you guys all good with cancing? >> No, nothing can be on.
>> Well, not of substance, right? >> Are we all good with that? >> Yes. >> Yes. Thank you. >> We have too many on the We're still in the meeting. >> We have to get control of the public. Please didn't make any
>> Guys, guys, we're still in a meeting. >> Frank, we're still in meeting. >> We're almost wrapped. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Go ahead. >> You never use that gabble in a year. I'm not going to start today. >> And I will. [laughter] >> Um, do we have any action items that we
need to follow up on? Obviously to me a big one >> yes >> is that we need to craft the beginning of or an architecture of terms and conditions. >> Yes. >> Does that accurately describe that?
>> Absolutely. >> Okay. >> Do we have anything else from anything previously discussed tonight for followup? Um I just want to say that if um although I have voted no, I'm happy to participate in that process because I
feel that that's the only think it's incredibly valuable that we get every member of the TC to participate in that activity. >> Agreed. >> Along with HPC, >> I think I'm going to connect with Barb I
believe about the volunteers for the Yeah. >> And let's not forget we have holidays ahead of us. So, happy holidays everybody. >> Happy holiday. >> And thank you for your birthday. >> Happy birthday.
>> Okay. Motion to adjurnn. >> Second. [laughter] All in favor? >> We're still live.