| Author | Message | ||
     mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 935 Registered: 4-2002 |
mhd: There are steps that have to take place before the zoning can be changed. It has been raised at almost every planning and zoning meeting. It will probably be a couple of more months before it is officially changed. I don't know who from the village said "immediately". I stated we would do it as soon as it could be done. | ||
| Howard Levison Moderator Username: Levisonh Post Number: 44 Registered: 10-2003 |
It has always been that the only option would be litigation inspection or not. I am within the 200 foot criteria but did not opt for the inspection taking my own detailed photos for a reference point. When I discussed the inspection with Pulte they indicated that: > the inspector was not licensed. > there was no review of findings prior to sign off > there was no statement of liability or who would be a final arbitrator other than litigation. | ||
| Mayhewdrive Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 763 Registered: 5-2001  |
Mark, Since you are responding to my note above, what about the other point about "preserving the existing character of the neighborhood"? You don't honestly think the house already built remotely conforms to anything already in the neighborhood, do you? | ||
| peteglider Citizen Username: Peteglider Post Number: 460 Registered: 8-2002 |
MHD -- Standing at the quarry I can see cottage style homes, ranch style, classic colonial, and contemporary. So to me it seems hard to say what it should "conform" to, other than not being a "McMansion". In this area we have such a mix -- from highly classic brick colonials to contemporary houses with "flying" roofs - perhaps there will be some stylistic differences between these new homes, too. (IMO) However, it does concern me that the "fence" is almost always open, that gravel is spilling all over the place, and it doesn't look like Pulte has run a street sweeper on the adjacent streets - perhaps ever. Right now there arn't too many kids out on bikes, etc. -- but come spring time -- if its in the same condition -- it will be even more of a hazard. Pete | ||
| Mayhewdrive Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 764 Registered: 5-2001 |
Pete, I agree with you on the condition of the site & surrounding areas. I also agree that the neighborhood has many styles of houses. I was referring more to the setback of the house...it appears to be MUCH closer to the street than other houses in the neighborhood. What is the zoning requirement for setback in the A-100 zone? Also, is that new retaining wall the backyard property line for the house? If so, than I also think the lot coverage for this house far exceeds other houses in the neighborhood and makes it appear like a "McMansion". (although a quite small one) What is the zoning limit on lot coverage in the A-100 zone? My concern is that at the Planning Board, the focus was solely on the duplexes inside the quarry that it doesn't seem like anyone reviewed the plans for the houses bordering Harding/Underhill. | ||
| doublea Citizen Username: Doublea Post Number: 420 Registered: 3-2003 |
Is the existing house selling for $900,000? In the real estate section of the Star-Ledger a couple of weeks ago, a piece about the development said that 2 of the 5 detached houses had already been sold. | ||
| Howard Levison Moderator Username: Levisonh Post Number: 45 Registered: 10-2003 |
What does seem out of place is the coverage ratio of building footprint to lot size. | ||
| Mayhewdrive Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 772 Registered: 5-2001 |
Since someone from the Village is obviously reading here, perhaps they can comment on the permissible lot coverage & setback in the A-100 zone & whether the Pulte mini-McMansion is compliant. | ||
| Mayhewdrive Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 773 Registered: 5-2001 |
Bumping this thread, so the questions above get answered. | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 939 Registered: 4-2002 |
MHD: The planning board approved the site plan. I put the question on for the next planning and zoning meeting (02/23/04 at 7p.m.) | ||
| Mayhewdrive Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 774 Registered: 5-2001 |
Until then, what is the permissible setback & lot coverage in the zone? If there is a question about Pulte's compliance, shouldn't construction be halted until there is an answer? The meeting you mention is 3 weeks from now. They could have 3 additional houses done by then. If they are not compliant...will they be made to move/take down the structure? | ||
| Howard Levison Moderator Username: Levisonh Post Number: 46 Registered: 10-2003 |
It was my impression that when the Planning Board reviewed the Pulte application the seven Harding/Underhill properties were not included as part of the "Quarry" but rather would stand on their own when developed. | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 941 Registered: 4-2002 |
MHD: I don't think there is a question of compliance. You do, so I will ask the question. If you really think that they are violating the zoning, I will ask the question for you at the meeting next monday if you send me via email. Howard: I think the Harding/underhill properties were in the original consent decree which included the size the homes could be. The maximum lot coverage is 30%. I do not remember what the setback is for that zone. | ||
| Howard Levison Moderator Username: Levisonh Post Number: 47 Registered: 10-2003 |
I have a call into Sal on both questions. I had discussed this with him in the past and what I remember is that these properties were not part of the application. | ||
| Mayhewdrive Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 775 Registered: 5-2001 |
Howard, As part of the original zoning and consent decree, these properties were intended to be treated like all other properties in the A-100 zone: "G. Harding Drive and Underhill Road frontage: All development which has frontage along Harding Drive and Underhill Road shall be lots for detached single—family dwellings and shall comply with the area, bulk, and yard requirements of the A-l00 zone. http://www.preserveso.com/zoning.htm Assuming, that retaining wall is the backyard property line, I find it hard to believe the property has less than 30% coverage (if that is the limit in the A-100 zone). I'll try to post pictures here tomorrow. | ||
| soresident Citizen Username: Soresident Post Number: 109 Registered: 10-2001 |
Just wanted to say thanks for raising the issue about lot coverage. I agree that the house looks like it is taking up an awful lot of what looks like the lot - especially for something Pulte is advertising as a $900,000 home. Maybe we're all wrong and that wall is not indicative of the backyard line. Given how fast that house seemed to go up, and how quickly Pulte is likely to move on other homes fronting Harding Drive, I'd certainly like the answer to this question sooner rather than later. | ||
| peteglider Citizen Username: Peteglider Post Number: 461 Registered: 8-2002 |
My previous house was new construction. Went away the week the foundation was built. Came home, stopped at the (new) house -- and it seemed all wrong. Measured the next day against the plans -- masons had built the wrong foundation. Was entirely bulldozed away and had to start over. So..its worth checking these new houses! (wasn't Pulte!) Tape measure anyone? Pete | ||
| Howard Levison Moderator Username: Levisonh Post Number: 48 Registered: 10-2003 |
I spoke with Sal this morning and he indicates that the ratio is 30% and that all foundations/applications (three so far) are within that code requirement. | ||
| soresident Citizen Username: Soresident Post Number: 112 Registered: 10-2001 |
Did you by any chance find out if back wall is the end of the lot? And have they confirmed that foundations as built are as listed on the application? | ||
| Mayhewdrive Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 776 Registered: 5-2001 |
I was wondering the same thing. I will post some pictures here tonight so everyone can see what we are talking about. I find it very hard to believe coverage is only 30%. Assuming the retaining wall is the property line, the "front yard" looks like it is only 10-15 feet and the "back yard" looks even less. What's even harder to believe is that someone is actually willing to pay $900,000 for this. |
