| Author |
Message |
    
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 1666
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 13, 2004 - 10:24 am: | 
|
I drove past the "Pulte Pit" this morning and noticed that the exteriors of the townhouses were being finished with vinyl siding.
I distinctly remember at the Planning Board, Pulte promised that the exteriors would be stucco to try to conform better with the surrounding neighborhood.
What is the purpose of Planning Board meetings if developers are not held accountable for what they say?
You would think that the $1.2 million the Village paid to subsidize this development would ensure the developer would not pull a "bait and switch".
Can anyone please explain? |
peteglider
Citizen
Username: Peteglider
Post Number: 769
Registered: 8-2002
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 13, 2004 - 10:38 am: |
|
MHD -- the houses built so far -- I believe the fronts are stucco, the sides & back vinyl. are the townhouses different? --Pete |
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 1667
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 13, 2004 - 10:39 am: |
|
Pete - Correct. From what I saw, all sides of the townhouses are vinyl sided. |
cmontyburns
Citizen
Username: Cmontyburns
Post Number: 485
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 13, 2004 - 1:04 pm: |
|
I'm kind of confused by this. There are other non-Pulte houses up there that have vinyl siding.
Is there some ban on vinyl siding in South Orange? |
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 1670
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 13, 2004 - 1:15 pm: |
|
You missed the point of my post above:
I distinctly remember at the Planning Board, Pulte promised that the exteriors would be stucco to try to conform better with the surrounding neighborhood.
What is the purpose of Planning Board meetings if developers are not held accountable for what they say? |
cmontyburns
Citizen
Username: Cmontyburns
Post Number: 487
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 13, 2004 - 1:38 pm: |
|
I think you're missing the point of my question.
What is the difference whether the houses have vinyl siding or stucco?
There are a million legitimate complaints against that development, but this doesn't seem like one of them. Unless you're going to go after everyone in town who has vinyl siding.
And yes, I appreciate your point that they said one thing to the planning board, then did another. But was the siding at all a key component to the decision on whether to allow them to build? I don't see the "bait and switch."
|
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 1671
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 13, 2004 - 3:34 pm: |
|
This is just another example of Pulte saying one thing at the Planning Board & doing another (for example they had previously stated they would retain many of the trees that fronted Harding/Underhill).
The exterior of these duplexes was specifically discussed at length during the Planning Board. What other items that were discussed will also be discarded? Who is responsible for enforcing that what was said during the Planning Board is followed & that what is built conforms to the plans that were approved? |
ffof
Citizen
Username: Ffof
Post Number: 2944
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 13, 2004 - 4:32 pm: |
|
At least it's not section 8 housing like Huemer wants to put in Maplewood. |
talk-it-up
Citizen
Username: Talkitup
Post Number: 76
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 13, 2004 - 11:50 pm: |
|
The point that appears to be at question here is - acountability. If there is any agreement that is not upheld, be it approved plans, or materials of construction, what representative of the village insures that the "built" item matches the "approved" item.
The other issue at hand is what is being stated above as a promise to build a higher quality of construction than vinyl siding. The stucco would be more labor intensive and more expensive. Vinyl siding cost effective solution and not appealing to all.
In either, case if agreements and approvals are not enforced, then what? |
Josh M.
Citizen
Username: Jmaxlaw
Post Number: 163
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, October 14, 2004 - 10:25 am: |
|
The point is-- they're not enforcing the agreement. The Village should go to court and get an injunction to halt construction. That should wake Pulte up.
If the Village doesn't enforce its side of the agreement-- it opens the door to other developers downtown to make deals and ignore them later. This is a perfect place for the Village to put its foot down. |
arizona
Citizen
Username: Arizona
Post Number: 120
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, October 14, 2004 - 10:31 am: |
|
Vinyl Siding, whether permitted in the town or not, is unsightly and not in keeping with the character of the neighborhood in which Pulte is building. Just driving by one can notice the unnatural seams in the siding. I, for one, would never purchase a home with vinyl or aluminum siding. I suppose that the unasthetic nature of vinyl siding is why Pulte initially agreed not to use it. Perhaps, even they knew it didn't match the neighborhood. |
woodstock
Citizen
Username: Woodstock
Post Number: 788
Registered: 9-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, October 14, 2004 - 10:40 am: |
|
Actually, I'm surprised Pulte agreed to not use vinyl siding. It's pretty much the standard for all new construction. The facade is typically brick, stucco, or something similar, and the other three sides are almost always siding.
Two reasons - It's inexpensive to install, and it's easy and inexpensive to maintain.
Aesthetics aside, you'd be hard pressed to find new construction (other than one-offs) that do not use siding at all, in almost any price range. |
Josh M.
Citizen
Username: Jmaxlaw
Post Number: 165
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, October 14, 2004 - 11:23 am: |
|
woodstock--
A lot of that new construction is happening on former farms out in Morris County-- where all the new buildings look like what Pulte is building. The homes and townhouses are completely out of place with the neighborhood-- and it appears the planning board recognized that.
Beyond that-- a deal is a deal. The Village should go to court to enforce that. |
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 1675
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, October 14, 2004 - 11:31 am: |
|
Josh,
Exactly! The exterior of these units was discussed extensively at the Planning Board because it was part of the Zoning & the "court order" that rules the property. The developer was explicitly asked if the exteriors would be vinyl and they said NO. (Mark has the transcripts, perhaps he can post the exact quote)
Why is the developer being allowed to change the plans that were approved?
From the Zoning for the site: (http://www.preserveso.com/zoning.htm)
Q. Design standards: Each dwelling unit and combined complex of dwelling units shall have a compatible architectural theme with appropriate variations and design to provide attractiveness to the development which shall include consideration of landscaping techniques, location and orientation of the buildings to the site and to other structures, topography, natural features, and individual dwelling unit design.
1. Monotony of design shall be avoided. Variation of detail, form and siting shall be used to provide visual interest. Buildings with excessive blank walls are discouraged. Maximum building or structure length shall be 195 feet. Building offsets shall be provided along each building to relieve the visual effect of a single long wall. Minimum four (4) foot building setbacks shall be provided for each two attached townhouse units and every fifty (50) feet of multi-family structures.
2. Particular attention shall be given to the frontage along Harding Drive and Underhill Road so as to preserve the existing character of the neighborhood.
|
woodstock
Citizen
Username: Woodstock
Post Number: 789
Registered: 9-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, October 14, 2004 - 1:18 pm: |
|
ok, silly question. What happens if all the homes on the site are built with stucco sides. I buy a house, and I want to have vinyl siding. So I pay to cover the stucco with vinyl siding. Am I in violation of something? |
woodstock
Citizen
Username: Woodstock
Post Number: 790
Registered: 9-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, October 14, 2004 - 1:21 pm: |
|
And MHD, perhaps I'm missing something (very likely), but no where in your quote, nor on that site, do I see stucco or vinyl siding mentioned at all. |
bobk
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 6357
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, October 14, 2004 - 1:22 pm: |
|
Nope, unless the town has a complete ban on vinyl or there is some historic district designation.
BTW, I ain't a lawyer (thank god), but the zoning ordinance seems to have holes in it big enough to drive an 18 wheeler through.
|
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 1676
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, October 14, 2004 - 1:31 pm: |
|
Woodstock - my understanding is that with a townhouse, the owner is typically prohibited from altering the EXTERIOR of the unit. This is usually dictated by the rules of the Condo Association.
Woodstock/bobk - my quote was to show that the "appearance" of these units was relevant to the zoning. You are absolutely right that it isn't very specific. However, the point is still that Pulte represented one thing (very explicitly) about the construction materials during the Planning Board hearings which were used as a basis for the project to be approved.
Why is the developer being allowed to change the specific plans that were approved? What other aspects of the Planning Board hearings will be disregarded (Drainage? Height restrictions? Site coverage? etc) and what will the Village do to enforce them?
|
woodstock
Citizen
Username: Woodstock
Post Number: 791
Registered: 9-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, October 14, 2004 - 1:43 pm: |
|
But I thought these weren't considered townhomes? (and is there a homeowners' association?)
I'm not saying that Pulte didn't agree to what you're saying. I'm just curious as to how enforceable it really is... |
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 1677
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, October 14, 2004 - 1:59 pm: |
|
Well, technically they are "manor homes", but let's be honest - they are attached townhouses.
I am quite certain there will be a homeowner's association (& associated common charges) which will take care of lawn mowing, snow plowing and property taxes on the detention basins.
Maybe I'll head to the sales office in the near future to confirm.
P.S. We never did get together over the Summer, we should reschedule one of these days. |
Josh M.
Citizen
Username: Jmaxlaw
Post Number: 166
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, October 14, 2004 - 2:10 pm: |
|
I would have to see the transcripts before I could say how enforceable what Pulte professed to is. I would also like to see the final official documents-- site/subdivision plans etc.
If Pulte agreed, and it was not put in by the legal staff to the final agreements, shame on the legal staff. |
woodstock
Citizen
Username: Woodstock
Post Number: 792
Registered: 9-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, October 14, 2004 - 2:29 pm: |
|
MHD, I can give you the email address of the sales folks. We stopped in when they were first going up to get an idea of what the mess was going to be, and we get updates whernever something "new" happens.
While I agree that they are esentially townhomes, phraseology (sp?) is very important, as I'm sure Josh can attest. If the state or town has ordinances on townhomes, there might be a good reason (beyond marketing) for why Pulte is calling them Manor Homes.
I guess there will have to be a homeowners' assn, but until it is formed, we won't know what the bylaws will be. Because the manor homes are essentially two family homes, I could imagine that if the owners agree on changes, they could make them. Wasn't part of the agreement that there would be some differentiation on the homes? What better way to get that than to let people do their own customization?
As for getting together, I'm still up for it. We're going to Disney this coming week, but I'll check with the boss about when we might be free. |
peteglider
Citizen
Username: Peteglider
Post Number: 771
Registered: 8-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, October 14, 2004 - 2:44 pm: |
|
I'd be pretty surprised if all homes (individual houses and townhouses) arn't part of the association.
My assumption would be that the common area is owned by the "community association," and all owners pay the assciation for upkeep of the common areas as well as the exterior of the units. Probably landscaping, snow removal, trash, etc.
Taxes are an interesting issue here -- in some developments the town includes it in each individual unit assessment (e.g., a share of the common areas). In others, the taxes are assessed to the association for the common elements, and its included in the monthly association fee.
The by-laws are required to be available for inspection for any prospective buyer. (wouldn't you want to see what you're in for??). That doesn't mean they can't be amended before the developer turns over control, of course.
Personally, I have no issue with vinyl siding. If Pulte promised to use stucco, however, and did not, well that's another point entirely.
Pete |
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 1678
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, October 14, 2004 - 3:14 pm: |
|
Personally, I have no issue with vinyl siding. If Pulte promised to use stucco, however, and did not, well that's another point entirely.
Pete - Exactly! |
Lizziecat
Citizen
Username: Lizziecat
Post Number: 423
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 14, 2004 - 3:46 pm: |
|
Are some of the single houses aleady occupied? I passed by there a couple of days ago, and it looked like as if least one house was already being lived in. |
cmontyburns
Citizen
Username: Cmontyburns
Post Number: 488
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, October 14, 2004 - 5:21 pm: |
|
Again: Aside from clinging to "they said one thing but did another," can you tell me what, exactly, the negative ramifications are of having vinyl siding on the homes?
Many, many, MANY homes in South Orange have vinyl siding. You may not like it, but plenty of people go out of their way to get it. It's not like they said they were going to build buildings 30 feet high, and instead built 80 feet. They said they were going to be stucco -- as many homes in South Orange are -- and instead appeared to use (for PART of the material) vinyl siding -- which many homes in South Orange are.
This doesn't strike me as a crime. Or a "lie." It seems entirely immaterial -- as in them saying they planned on numbering the houses with even numbers, but then switched to odd.
|
mary032
Citizen
Username: Mary032
Post Number: 102
Registered: 8-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, October 14, 2004 - 5:50 pm: |
|
Cmonty, It's a question of esthetics and value. Either you like vinyl siding or you don't. Obviously you do. Either you think vinyl siding looks cheap or you don't. Obviously you don't.
Happily you are not one of those who have the final say on what is beautiful in our housing stock. |
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 1679
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, October 14, 2004 - 6:06 pm: |
|
cmonty,
This latest lie is just another in a string of deceptive statements made by Pulte:
-They said they would retain the existing trees on the property. They didn't.
-They said they wouldn't work on Saturdays. They do.
-They said blasting would last a couple weeks. It will really last almost a year.
-They said the exterior of these units would be stucco. They are COMPLETELY vinyl sided, which is a completely different quality & look to the existing neighborhood.
"Many, many, MANY homes in South Orange have vinyl siding." That's pretty dramatic, no? Other than Jessica Way (which is a "new" development), I bet you'd be hard pressed to find 20 vinyl sided houses in the town.
Why is the developer being allowed to change the specific plans that were approved? What other aspects of the Planning Board hearings will be disregarded (Drainage? Height restrictions? Site coverage? etc) and what will the Village do to enforce them?
|
mary032
Citizen
Username: Mary032
Post Number: 103
Registered: 8-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, October 14, 2004 - 6:15 pm: |
|
Messrs. Rosen, Rosner, Joyce,
Any answers to MHD's questions, pleeeeeeease? |
woodstock
Citizen
Username: Woodstock
Post Number: 794
Registered: 9-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, October 14, 2004 - 10:20 pm: |
|
Mary - And here I thought HOMEOWNERS had the final say of what they consider beautiful for THEIR home, not nosey neigbors.
I gues either you're someone who likes to tilt at windmills, or you're not.
I guess you're either someone who wants to tell others what their homes should look like, or you're not.
MHD, I understand your point, and I don't disagree. |
cmontyburns
Citizen
Username: Cmontyburns
Post Number: 489
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 15, 2004 - 8:45 am: |
|
Again, to go back to my first point: It seems there are countless legitimate complaints against the Pulte development (many of which MHD has outlined three posts above this one). Trying to hold them to some standard that others in town aren't held to is simply unfair, and allows the Pulte side to dismiss you as NIMBYs. Stick to the myriad destructive things they ARE doing up there (MHD has outlined many of them 3 posts above this one.)
And for the record: I would never live in a house with vinyl siding. Unless it was located next door to Mary's house.
|
Josh M.
Citizen
Username: Jmaxlaw
Post Number: 168
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Friday, October 15, 2004 - 9:00 am: |
|
I think some here may be missing the point... or at least my point. It's not the vinyl siding-- it's the fact they said they wouldn't use it and they are. AND... the Village is not seeking to enforce the agreement.
NOT enforcing agreements sets a really bad precedent. Not bad... really bad precedent. |
LibraryLady(ncjanow)
Citizen
Username: Librarylady
Post Number: 1911
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, October 15, 2004 - 11:30 am: |
|
Is an agreement a binding agreement if it isn't in writing? Just asking. |
Just The Aunt
Citizen
Username: Auntof13
Post Number: 225
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Friday, October 15, 2004 - 11:53 am: |
|
How can you tell if a house has vinyl siding? |
woodstock
Citizen
Username: Woodstock
Post Number: 795
Registered: 9-2002
| | Posted on Friday, October 15, 2004 - 11:55 am: |
|
It's pretty obvious if a house has vinyl siding. It's a very... distinctive... look. Come on over to Jessica Way to see it. It's on every house here except one. |
peteglider
Citizen
Username: Peteglider
Post Number: 773
Registered: 8-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, October 17, 2004 - 6:03 pm: |
|
curious about this thread -- I drove up into the development this afternoon.
well..it pretty obvious MHD can't tell what vinyl siding is!
The townhouses are NOT clad in vinyl, rather very attractive CEDAR SHAKES! (or imitation shakes, like Hardi).
They look really very nice and upscale.
That said, the sides and backs of the single family houses are vinyl -- while the fronts are stucco (or imitation stucco!)
Looking at the architecture of the townhouses, I can't imagine stucco could be used. There are many lines, trim, etc.
Geez...
/p |
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 1765
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, October 31, 2004 - 1:29 pm: |
|
Pete,
Curious about your comment, I went up to the Pulte Pit recently and confirmed you are correct - the exteriors are some sort of wood shakes, not vinyl. Although, this is still different from what was presented and approved at the Planning Board.
I also inquired about the "common charges" and was told it will initially be $430 per month (over $5000 annually), in addition to the $30,000 per year in property taxes.
Lawn Maintenance & snow plowing is provided. People can plant their own trees or gardens, but fences are not permitted.
As a "townhouse", people are unable to alter the exterior of the units (materials or colors), except for the color of the door and shutters.
I'd suggest that people carefully review the "rules" of the development, because it sounds like there are many. |
woodstock
Citizen
Username: Woodstock
Post Number: 800
Registered: 9-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, October 31, 2004 - 9:49 pm: |
|
MHD, it's pretty common for communities like that to have rules, if there is a homeowner's association. My wife lived in a townhouse complex down in Virginia, and some of the rules bordered on the absurd. But most people who move into those types of communities are well awawre of what they're getting into. And as long as they pay for their own stuff, it's no skin off my nose... Now, I don't live right near it like you, so I'm not directly impacted by the day to day stuff there. |
MHD
Citizen
Username: Mayhewdrive
Post Number: 1818
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, December 17, 2004 - 8:24 am: |
|
I had missed most of Monday's Trustee meeting, but I saw in the News Record yesterday that rock crushing has been halted at the Quarry again, because Pulte was violating an earlier agreement and was hauling crushed rock off-site.
Brave to Doug Gill for his perserverance to ensure that SOMEONE is watching the developer. What I don't understand is why is the Village not monitoring and enforcing these rules more carefully? Pulte has proven themselves repeatedly to be unable to be trusted (see examples in thread above).
Why is the Village allowing the fox to guard the henhouse? If the "allegations" are proven to be true, will the Village fine the developer so maybe we can get back some of the $1.2 million the Village paid to subsidize this development? |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page