| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
fyi
Joined: Thu, Aug 9 2012, 9:19 am EDT
Posts: 884
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
McQuestion-q2q6
Guest
|
 Posted: Fri, Jan 19 2018, 11:53 am EST Post subject: Re: The January 22, 2018 Township Committee meeting agenda |
 |
|
| What is a McMansion Ordinance? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
anon;oqs6-nnnp
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri, Jan 19 2018, 12:10 pm EST Post subject: Re: The January 22, 2018 Township Committee meeting agenda |
|
|
| It has to do with the demolition and or upscaling the homes primarily in the Village, and Evans Drive area . For example; the old home of Marie Dey that is now being demolished. Similar to what the Nissens [14 Evans Drive] did to the preexisting home that was on their property.It seems the town fathers want to control the ability of the property owners to use their property as they see fit. Actually it is more of a zoning issue. Last year no action was taken but it looks like they are going to revisit the issue this year. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
anon-88r5
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri, Jan 19 2018, 2:57 pm EST Post subject: Re: The January 22, 2018 Township Committee meeting agenda |
|
|
In my discussions with TC members is not going to impact over 95% of homes in town and a good architect could find a way to get the square footage needed in the other 5% of homes. It would not prevent a home like Marie Dey's from being demolished.
What it would do is require the new home to be designed in such a way that it is not intruding on the surrounding properties so we do not have a situation like what is happening at the beaches today. So instead of a 3 story house, it may be two stories, but to get the same square footage the owner may need to build off the back. Or a home with a tight sideline may not be able to build a straight wall two stories up, but require some sort of break between the first and second floor like a lot of homes in Shadow Oaks are designed.
From what I understand, the goal is to protect existing homes and homeowners from losing property value and from finding their quality of life negatively impacted from having a nice backyard to having essentially a wall in their backyard and being full of shade.
And we have zoning laws now where property owners can't just do anything they want as well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
anon-0522
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri, Jan 19 2018, 5:07 pm EST Post subject: Re: The January 22, 2018 Township Committee meeting agenda |
|
|
| anon-88r5 wrote: | In my discussions with TC members is not going to impact over 95% of homes in town and a good architect could find a way to get the square footage needed in the other 5% of homes. It would not prevent a home like Marie Dey's from being demolished.
What it would do is require the new home to be designed in such a way that it is not intruding on the surrounding properties so we do not have a situation like what is happening at the beaches today. So instead of a 3 story house, it may be two stories, but to get the same square footage the owner may need to build off the back. Or a home with a tight sideline may not be able to build a straight wall two stories up, but require some sort of break between the first and second floor like a lot of homes in Shadow Oaks are designed.
From what I understand, the goal is to protect existing homes and homeowners from losing property value and from finding their quality of life negatively impacted from having a nice backyard to having essentially a wall in their backyard and being full of shade.
And we have zoning laws now where property owners can't just do anything they want as well. |
Seems like a waste of time since we already have zoning in place for set backs and height restrictions. My experience with these things is that someone gets a hair up their butt because they didn’t like what their neighbor did and so people run in to over-regulate. It seems fundamentally unfair to the people who will be affected to change the rules after they bought their home. Hopefully the TC will realize this is a dumb idea. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
anon-88r5
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri, Jan 19 2018, 5:21 pm EST Post subject: Re: The January 22, 2018 Township Committee meeting agenda |
|
|
| anon-0522 wrote: | | anon-88r5 wrote: | In my discussions with TC members is not going to impact over 95% of homes in town and a good architect could find a way to get the square footage needed in the other 5% of homes. It would not prevent a home like Marie Dey's from being demolished.
What it would do is require the new home to be designed in such a way that it is not intruding on the surrounding properties so we do not have a situation like what is happening at the beaches today. So instead of a 3 story house, it may be two stories, but to get the same square footage the owner may need to build off the back. Or a home with a tight sideline may not be able to build a straight wall two stories up, but require some sort of break between the first and second floor like a lot of homes in Shadow Oaks are designed.
From what I understand, the goal is to protect existing homes and homeowners from losing property value and from finding their quality of life negatively impacted from having a nice backyard to having essentially a wall in their backyard and being full of shade.
And we have zoning laws now where property owners can't just do anything they want as well. |
Seems like a waste of time since we already have zoning in place for set backs and height restrictions. My experience with these things is that someone gets a hair up their butt because they didn’t like what their neighbor did and so people run in to over-regulate. It seems fundamentally unfair to the people who will be affected to change the rules after they bought their home. Hopefully the TC will realize this is a dumb idea. |
I disagree, but feel free to go to the TC meeting and voice your opinion.
If people can get the sq footage they need, but not impact their neighbors property values then it is a win win scenario. Why should my property be devalued because someone decides to buy the home next to me and build a 3 story house? Why should I live in perpetual shade and look at a tall home that decided to go right up to the allowable set back.
The TC seems to be striking a balance where 100% of homes could still get the size they need, but do so in a manner that does not affect the neighnor's value. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
anon-q2q6
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri, Jan 19 2018, 6:49 pm EST Post subject: Re: The January 22, 2018 Township Committee meeting agenda |
|
|
| anon-88r5 wrote: | | anon-0522 wrote: | | anon-88r5 wrote: | In my discussions with TC members is not going to impact over 95% of homes in town and a good architect could find a way to get the square footage needed in the other 5% of homes. It would not prevent a home like Marie Dey's from being demolished.
What it would do is require the new home to be designed in such a way that it is not intruding on the surrounding properties so we do not have a situation like what is happening at the beaches today. So instead of a 3 story house, it may be two stories, but to get the same square footage the owner may need to build off the back. Or a home with a tight sideline may not be able to build a straight wall two stories up, but require some sort of break between the first and second floor like a lot of homes in Shadow Oaks are designed.
From what I understand, the goal is to protect existing homes and homeowners from losing property value and from finding their quality of life negatively impacted from having a nice backyard to having essentially a wall in their backyard and being full of shade.
And we have zoning laws now where property owners can't just do anything they want as well. |
Seems like a waste of time since we already have zoning in place for set backs and height restrictions. My experience with these things is that someone gets a hair up their butt because they didn’t like what their neighbor did and so people run in to over-regulate. It seems fundamentally unfair to the people who will be affected to change the rules after they bought their home. Hopefully the TC will realize this is a dumb idea. |
I disagree, but feel free to go to the TC meeting and voice your opinion.
If people can get the sq footage they need, but not impact their neighbors property values then it is a win win scenario. Why should my property be devalued because someone decides to buy the home next to me and build a 3 story house? Why should I live in perpetual shade and look at a tall home that decided to go right up to the allowable set back.
The TC seems to be striking a balance where 100% of homes could still get the size they need, but do so in a manner that does not affect the neighnor's value. |
As with anything like this, the devil is in the details. That said, the current setbacks and height restrictions were in place when you bought your house. Why should you be able to change the value of your neighbor's property? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
anon-1494
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri, Jan 19 2018, 7:28 pm EST Post subject: Re: The January 22, 2018 Township Committee meeting agenda |
|
|
The neighbor’s home was also built when I bought my home. Why would I assume they would tear their house down and build a monster 3 story home next door?
Setbacks and height restrictions also have evolved over time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
anon-03p7
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri, Jan 19 2018, 7:41 pm EST Post subject: Re: The January 22, 2018 Township Committee meeting agenda |
|
|
As a follow up, I am told the yellow house on S Main that did the renovation is an example of what the town would still allow. It is a great example of making a larger home, but keeping character. The same with a home on hardley that added a garage and expansion was an example of a great design.
The homes from the street are in character, but larger using design and their own yard space. So they were able to enlarge their homes and not affect the value of the homes around them.
Good architects will make the design work for what the homeowner needs like these owners did thus I believe the statement that 100% of homes could still enlarge if wanted. People will be able to tear down and build new as well. The issue is simply how the home owner does it.
I have confidence in hearing the proposal since Mr. Mulligan and Mr. Taylor are the ones running it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
anon;oqs9-nnnp
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri, Jan 19 2018, 8:20 pm EST Post subject: Re: The January 22, 2018 Township Committee meeting agenda |
|
|
| As for the old yellow home on south main street. Well I suggest you go to the adjoining property owners and see what they think. They are not happy and justifibly so.The overexpansion of that home is totally inconsistent with the character of the "Village Historic District". The minimum lot size along with the added impervious surface are inconsistent with good zoning and planning criteria. The impact on adjoining properties is significant and the loss of character and privacy for those adjoining properties is significant. The same goes for the tree removals by Mr. Taylor adjacent to the park along with some of the other infractions [the yellow house tree removal on park property] contrary to Parks Commission recommendations. Go look at the damage from the park side of the property.It really boils down to who you are and how much influence you have---there really is no consideration for the neighbors nor the town . |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
anon-s6p5
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri, Jan 19 2018, 9:52 pm EST Post subject: Re: The January 22, 2018 Township Committee meeting agenda |
|
|
Interesting.
What tree removals are you accusing Mr. Taylor of doing? You do realize that Shade Tree reviews trees and parks reviews and approves as well. The shade tree commission tells the town what trees to take down. Just reading TC notes shows they simply defer to shade tree in that regard. Or are you saying he took trees down on his own property and you disagree with that? Or that he hired someone to take down parks trees? I don’t monitor our residents closely enough to know what they do in their own homes. Seems like stalking to me.
You made a serious allegation about him using his influence so explain your facts and show us proof please. Or is this just another troll like the police at Teddy’s to stir the pot. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
anon-q2q6
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat, Jan 20 2018, 10:01 am EST Post subject: Re: The January 22, 2018 Township Committee meeting agenda |
|
|
| anon-1494 wrote: | The neighbor’s home was also built when I bought my home. Why would I assume they would tear their house down and build a monster 3 story home next door?
Setbacks and height restrictions also have evolved over time. |
Why would you assume your neighbors would NOT build the house of their dreams on the property they own within the existing zoning regulations?
I'm not familiar with any changes to height restrictions and setbacks in Evans and other affected areas. Please explain what has changed? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
anon-54r5
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat, Jan 20 2018, 10:10 am EST Post subject: Re: The January 22, 2018 Township Committee meeting agenda |
|
|
Evans was built over 50 years ago. The zoning has changed in the past 50 years. There was even discussion about setbacks and setbacks at the last Master Plan review.
No one is saying the people can't enlarge their home or tear down and build new. No one including me or you know what the proposal is so there is no point in arguing this until there is a factual presentation of the data. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
anon-03p7
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat, Jan 20 2018, 3:43 pm EST Post subject: Re: The January 22, 2018 Township Committee meeting agenda |
|
|
| anon-q2q6 wrote: | | anon-1494 wrote: | The neighbor’s home was also built when I bought my home. Why would I assume they would tear their house down and build a monster 3 story home next door?
Setbacks and height restrictions also have evolved over time. |
Why would you assume your neighbors would NOT build the house of their dreams on the property they own within the existing zoning regulations?
I'm not familiar with any changes to height restrictions and setbacks in Evans and other affected areas. Please explain what has changed? |
I think the majority would assume their neighbor may add a pool, an extension, finished basement, etc... that most are not going to tear down a house and build a new one.
I am not aware of any home in Cranbury where a property owner tore down their home they had been living in and then built a McMansion. The home rebuilds that could be in consideration (in my guess) were buyers who came in bought a home and built new mostly as speculators. In that case they would not be impacted because they would know the zoning laws before buying the land and could design the new home on the new standards. The seller is not impacted because the buyer could still get the same square footage just using different standards.
No one has ever said someone for example would buy a cape on Evans and be forced to keep it as is.
In fact the only homes that cannot be demolished are in the HPC zone and that went from advisory to enforcement in 2007 or so. Thus an example of changing zoning laws on existing homes and owners. The difference being that this does not seem as restrictive. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
anon-1499
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun, Jan 21 2018, 3:40 pm EST Post subject: Re: The January 22, 2018 Township Committee meeting agenda |
|
|
| Real estate is worth what someone is willing to pay for it. If you don’t let the next buyer build their dream home, the real estate is not worth as much. Conversely, if you let them build a nice beautiful home, like the ones that have been built, the surrounding real estate is worth more. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
anon-4nn2
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun, Jan 21 2018, 6:39 pm EST Post subject: Re: The January 22, 2018 Township Committee meeting agenda |
|
|
Agree. Except people are buying and building investment homes so they are not people building a dream home. Further, people often will go in and speak with an architect to help design their dream home so a good architect will make it work based on existing zoning.
I haven’t seen anyone yet say existing homes would be examples of prohibited buildings. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
