| Author | Message | ||
     bobk Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 4605 Registered: 5-2001 |
Arizona, are you the person who indicated you live over a mile from the quarry? I would think damage to your house would be somewhat unlikely, but stranger things have happened. However, I would strongly suggest you contact Pulte and have them take a look at your house. | ||
| arizona Citizen Username: Arizona Post Number: 19 Registered: 2-2004 |
bobk: No I am not the person who indicated living over a mile from the quarry. I have not measured the distance but it's probably less than 1/2 mile. HL: I have sent a letter to Sal Renda indicating the damage. Haven't heard from him yet. So, yes I have made some efforts at documenting beyond expressing my annoyance. If the only downside of lowering the charge is additional cost to Pulte I think it is outrageous to not demand that they do this immediately. Hypothetical: I'm having tree work done on my property. A large limb falls on my neighbor's fence and damages it. I am responsible. What if continued tree work at a greater expense to me would reduce chance of damage to neighbor? Seems like I am morally and probably legally responsible for incurring the cost -- not to mention the cost of repairing the fence. | ||
| soresident Citizen Username: Soresident Post Number: 118 Registered: 10-2001 |
watched parts of last night's meeting. Pat Joyce and Bill Calebrese were asked by Ed Matthews to leave the room when this was discussed due to prior Ethics Committee ruling. John Gross basically said that Village would try to facilitate resident complaints of damage - ie, bring it to his attention by email or call, he will have someone (Sal perhaps?) go to site with Pulte to see if it can be worked out between the parties. He was pretty clear that Pulte, like any other builder in town, is the party that homeowner has to deal with if homeowner is aggrieved, that it is not Village's responsibility to deal with this. Re: blasting - it was suggested that blasting might last for as long as a year. Someone (sorry, can't recall who) said they thought Pulte said before Planning Board that blasting would last 3 weeks; Sal wasn't sure he recalled that and said he would review transcripts. Suggested that even if developer stated that blasting would be so short, that was informational only (I was incredulous to hear this); imnplication was that developer could blast if needed as long as it complied with law. Mark Rosner asked that, if its true that representations were made that blasting would be short, Village inquire of Pulte why that is not the case. There was some discussion about timing of blasting and notification to residents. Don't think anything was resolved. Fire Chief said once holes are dug and chemicals mixed, they must blast; sometimes it happens the next day. Horns before the blast are informational only, for workers on the site. | ||
| soresident Citizen Username: Soresident Post Number: 119 Registered: 10-2001 |
Also - perhaps someone else could fill in substance of discussion on size of houses on the lots. I just saw a part of that discussion. Suggestion seemed to be that, despite residents perception to the contrary, there is apparently compliance with requirements. Village is checking foundations as built to ensure they comply with plans. Existence of 2 retaining walls in back of lots makes back yard appear shorter than it really is. Suggested that back lot line is actually behind back retaining wall. Steve Seglitz also said most Harding Drive homeowners near those lots have almost no backyards and have retaining walls. No discussion I heard about height of wall. | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 966 Registered: 4-2002 |
Arizona: Take your hypothetical. Would you expect the village to help your neighbor sue you or would you try to work it out with him on your own? Would you and your neighbor notify your insurance carriers? Pulte is now your neighbor. They have been blasting within legal limits. They should do whatever they can do to make the situation better. I would also think that you would contact Pulte. I don't have your name so I can't make sure that Sal Renda gets back to you. I did see a list of all the people who have formally complained to the village and I was told that everyone of them has been or will be contacted by the village. We have notified Pulte about the complaints. So far, only one resident has formally complained to me and I had the village contact the person. I would suggest to you that if Patrick contacted you that your complaint only went to him and not to the other elected officials (at least not to me). | ||
| Mayhewdrive Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 785 Registered: 5-2001  |
soresident, You stated "Village is checking foundations as built to ensure they comply with plans". To me, it appears that the outer perimeter of the house is larger than the foundation was (i.e perhaps the garage is built on a slab?). Isn't the issue "lot coverage"? In other words, shouldn't the outer dimensions of the house be measured & compared to the outer dimensions of the lot? (also, does the retaining wall factor in to the calculation of lot coverage?) You also stated "Existence of 2 retaining walls in back of lots makes back yard appear shorter than it really is". This ridiculous statement sounds like something Steglitz would say. Does anyone really care if the retaining wall is 10(?) feet wide? Does that mean the "yard" is really 10(?) feet deeper? The truth is the presence of the retaining wall significantly reduces the size of the yard. It's comical to think that people who are naive enough to buy these houses will be excited to have a retaining wall that they will be paying property taxes & maintenace for, while getting a 5 foot deep "usable" yard. It's like saying the people who buy the duplexes that back up to the | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 968 Registered: 4-2002 |
It was confirmed that the lot coverage does not exceed the 30% limit. The retaining wall is not the property line. Lots of people buy houses with small or non-existent back yards. I would also suggest that someone should not judge the product until it is completed. | ||
| soresident Citizen Username: Soresident Post Number: 121 Registered: 10-2001 |
Mayhew Drive - have to say that I resent your hostility directed to me, when what I was attempting to do was report on what I caught on tv last night for benefit of those who didn't see program. The reason I got involved in this discussion earlier on was that I also questioned whether these houses seemed big for the lots when you passed by on Harding Drive. I have no idea what the legal requirements are for foundations vs. outside perimenter re: lot coverage. I don't think the statement about the two retaining walls is ridiculous. As you look at the property from the front, there is a perception problem. It looks like the house takes up the entire "back yard" because your eyes fool you by basically "blending" the two walls so you think the backyard ends where the first wall is. In fact, apparently the lot line is behind the second wall. The fact that the homeowner has little or no usable backyard is their problem; if the retaining walls are legal (and I did hear somethng suggesting they were on the submitted plan), then I have to presume the coverage issue has been resolved. It may look small to us, but it could still be ok. Try this example: what if, instead of a rock wall, Pulte had planted hedges across the same area. There still would be no usable yard, but the house wouldn't be exceeding appropriate lot coverage. | ||
| Mayhewdrive Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 786 Registered: 5-2001 |
soresident, My apologies...my hostility was not directed at YOU. I was questioning the statements that you reported were made by the Trustees. So, basically it sounds like the retaining wall does not count towards lot coverage. I think it is hysterical that someone would actually buy this thing. Especially after reading other people's experience with Paltry Homes: http://www.getpulteoutoftn.com/ http://ncmoneypit.com/ http://www.trendzweb.com/pulte/ http://www.paltryhomes.com/ | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 970 Registered: 4-2002 |
MHD: A retaining wall does not count towards lot coverage. Just to repeat, according to the village engineer, the lot coverage does not exceed the 30% limit. The lot is approx. 10,000 sq. ft. (just under 1/4 acre). Soresident: I thought your recap was accurate. | ||
| arizona Citizen Username: Arizona Post Number: 20 Registered: 2-2004 |
MHD: nice job on oncovering info on Pulte's disregard for neighbors, communities and more. Too bad that we are stuck with them now. | ||
| just me fromsouthorange Citizen Username: Jmfromsorange Post Number: 82 Registered: 7-2003 |
does anyone know if the levels of blasting by pulte are the same as they were when the quarry blasted? | ||
| Howard Levison Moderator Username: Levisonh Post Number: 61 Registered: 10-2003 |
The Fire Chief can give you the answer. | ||
| doublea Citizen Username: Doublea Post Number: 450 Registered: 3-2003 |
From today's News-Record: "Some were led to believe the blasting would take a few weeks, but are now worried it could take up to a year. 'My impression was that they said blasting was supposed to take three weeks,' said Village President Bill Calabrese, who is excluded from Board of Trustees policy decisions on the issue because he lives near the quarry. 'My whole house shakes. Every day I go home and straighten the pictures on the walls.' Calabrese has been telling residents to put their insurance companies on notice if they notice blasting is affecting their home. 'Maybe I can't show them cracks in the walls now, but you want to put it on record because who knows, it might show up two years from now,' Calabrese said." .................... John Gross's response was that even if Pulte said it was only going to take three weeks, this was not a "representation" but "informational" and the Planning Board didn't rely on it in making its decision to allow the blasting. Sal Renda was asked to review the planning board minutes to see whether Pulte said three weeks. Even if they did, it was stated since it was informational only, nothing can be done other than to ask why it's now going to take one year. | ||
| Mayhewdrive Citizen Username: Mayhewdrive Post Number: 791 Registered: 5-2001 |
Since the Planning Board format seemed to replicate a kind of "trial" (stenographer, witnesses, cross-examination etc), shouldn't perjury be pursued? I'm sure there were numerous "misrepresentations" made during the hearings. (i.e. the blasting won't affect anyone outside of 200 feet & will be barely be noticeable, the blasting will only last x period of time - certainly not 1 year, etc etc) | ||
| Howard Levison Moderator Username: Levisonh Post Number: 62 Registered: 10-2003 |
I am curious if Pulte can operate the quarry or perform other commerical operations - I have noticed trucks leaving the site loaded with crushed stone. | ||
| arizona Citizen Username: Arizona Post Number: 22 Registered: 2-2004 |
Does anyone know if all of the blasts are monitored or just some of them?? It has been brought to my attention by an attorney with experience in the area of excavation/blasting that it is customary for builders to save the big blasts for times when they know that they are not being monitored. I am not suggesting that this is the case, however, it would be nice to know if Pulte is being monitored some or all of the time. | ||
| mrosner Citizen Username: Mrosner Post Number: 973 Registered: 4-2002 |
Howie: I don't know the answer to that. Arizona: As per the Fire Chief (Markey), every blast is monitored. | ||
| J. Crohn Citizen Username: Jcrohn Post Number: 915 Registered: 3-2003 |
"I have noticed trucks leaving the site loaded with crushed stone." Oh, so have I, while visiting a friend who complains that up to 60 trucks travel up and down Tillou past her house every day, spewing diesel fumes, waking the baby, and making a mess of the road. I suggested she contact the Village, but she reasons it would be a waste of time. | ||
| Dan Shelffo Citizen Username: Openspacer Post Number: 91 Registered: 6-2001 |
Pulte has a giant machine that crushes the rocks from the blasting into smaller stones. This is causing the constant noise that some people are hearing. This is also the cause of the black dirt that was covering the snow in the area and could be the source of the rocks being trucked out. |
