Cranbury Forum | Bulletin | Info Sharing

Post a reply

Username

Subject

Message body

Emoticons

Font colour: Font size:

Close Tags

[quote="Attendee-081r"]I'll respond to the above having attended the meeting.

First, there was no vote. The TC said there would be further discussion with a formal vote on nov. 26.

From what I recall this is the discussion.

- windows will be monitored to ensure they are not broken.

- roofs must be intact and weather resistant. This was a big issue as Mr. Taylor stated his view this was too costly a repair for a town to mandate.

- if you build anything then when the project is done you must clear materials. So lumber, paving stones, cannot be kept even in your backyard.

- grass must be mowed at a certain height.

- fences will be monitored to ensure they are upright and have all their parts.

There are more that I forget and the poster above hit some.  However, I am concerned over a slippery slope. If we can mandate windows and roofs then why not paint? What is stopping this from expanding?

Mr. Mulligan stated in whole this is for 6 properties and Mr. Johnson stated his view it was to stop future decline and preserve buildings.

My own comments:

I got the impression from Mr. Johnson that this is a first step. He did not say that, but he talked of a goal to preserve structures. This to me is a big concern. They are adding a new ordinance and not changing an existing one as I think a prior poster suggested.

Mr. Mulligan and Mr. Johnson are staunch supporters and we need this now.

Ms. Goetz seemed inclined to listen. She didn't offer any comments that I recall. She seemed neutral.

Mr. Cook seemed supportive. He questioned fences and penalties. He said more comment was needed.

Mr. Taylor questioned a lot of the wording. He stated a desire to address the issue by focusing legislation on unoccupied buildings. He did comment that more public input was needed.

Mr. Mulligan and Johnson were lauded by the audience. Mr. Taylor was actually being attacked by the people in the audience and in public comment twice.

Both Tom and Cindy were there and when given an opportunity to comment with others neither said a word. If they were opposed they had an opportunity to state it and at least show a contrast with Mr. Cook.

I got the impression that this is supported by only one area of town and that the only solution for them is to have everyone live in a town wide HOA.

Two residents spoke up concerned about it.[/quote]

Options
HTML is ON
BBCode is ON
Smilies are ON

	Disable HTML in this post
	Disable BBCode in this post
	Disable Smilies in this post