For Your Car’s Next 3000 Mile Oil Change!
My brand new Cuisinart percolator, as shiny and pretty as it looked out of the box…..
….makes s-l-u-d-g-e for coffee.
I’ve made coffee three times with it. Three times too many. The first two with Starbucks beans that I ground myself, each of those two experimenting with how coarse or fine to grind the beans. A mouthful of coffee grinds and toast do not a good combination make.
So for the heck of it, I tried using pre-ground coffee, some Folgers I had in the fridge.
The Folgers also left tons of ground all over the inside of the percolator and worse, a double whammy, The Cuisinart perks the coffee to such a high temperature, there was zero coffee taste, or that good coffee smell.
My love affair with the Cuisinart is over. Back to the tried and true Chemex. I am sorry I gave up on you for someone new. But I am back and back to stay. Forgive me.
Like this:
I’m Coming Back as a Pink Peony
Open That Awning Lady and I’ll Poop on Your Head
By sheer happenstance I looked UP before opening the awning over the living room because I thought I heard chirping. Lo and behold, mom, staring down at me with beady eyes, and lots of babies. I couldn’t see how many and can’t get high enough or over the awning to see the babies, but suffice it to say I have removed the remote awning control from the room until the babies fly away.
Phew, that was close.
Like this:
And So Goes The Circle
I am struck by the fact that on different pieces of the same property in Bedford, two very separate and distinct events will take place today.
St. Patrick’s Church will be filled with mourners at the Mary Kennedy funeral. Surely not a dry eye in the house after her sudden and tragic death.
And barely one hundred feet away, on the grounds of the Church School, the annual carnival. Children, full of merriment.
One has to wonder if the joyous sounds from the carnival will spill over into the church service……and if it does, maybe, just maybe, that’s how Mary’s family would want it.
Like this:
Why Make This Doohickey If You Can’t USE It Anymore?
The little slidey thing that in the old days used to lock into a groove, permitting you to stand and look cool while the gas pumped itself. It would click off when the tank was full but now, no matter where I go for gasoline, not one pump allows for locking the slide anymore.
Further, you can’t even use your gas cap anymore as a wedge. Illegal? In New York? Nationwide? Pure hype?
It’s a conspiracy. Car manufacturers make it impossible to use the cap anyway. Mine has a tip at the end so it couldn’t sit properly as a wedge.
I suppose someone somewhere wasn’t paying attention and the gas tank spilled over and they got burned and sued and now we have regulations. That’s how it seems to work in the United States anymore. Sigh.
So I want to know. Why does the pump even have the slide? Whatever company makes it is getting rich for something that does nothing. Hey, that sounds great. What I invent that is useless and get paid to make it?
Like this:
A Gentle Wind
Click on arrow to play (hard to see because the arrow is white on the white flower).
Like this:
No Words Necessary
The Belfry: DEMOLITION PERMIT TO BE GRANTED
[Ed. note: Anyone who wants the complete back story on The Belfry, enter the word Belfry in my Search box on the right. Start with the oldest article and work your way up].
The Bedford Town Board met at 7pm tonight to listen to and vote on weigh in on the appeal presented by the owners of The Belfry who filed for a permit to demolish the Tudor home but were denied by the Town Historic Preservation Commission.
photo by Ginnel Real Estate
When I got there at 6:50 and was the only one in the room, I worried that I had the wrong night, but slowly the court room filled and the meeting started promptly at 7.
The lawyer for the owners was first to speak, but he very smartly made his comments brief, reiterated “our contention is that the Historic Preservation Commission made an error.”
The owner was the second to address the Board and she spoke calmly and ever so eloquently.
She made the case that they have been Bedford residents for 27 years and when they were shown The Belfry around Christmas of 2010, before deciding to purchase it, she and her husband did their due diligence, hiring local lawyers, local surveyors, and engineers.
It wasn’t until four months later, April 2011, that they were notified by the secretary to the Historic Preservation Commission that their home sat “on a survey”.
The owner contended they were never notified of the survey. No one, not their attorney, not their real estate broker, not the seller who managed the property for years, and not the local owner’s representative. None of those parties was aware that the house sat on a list of historic homes.
On May 12, they met with the Head of Planning Board and asked if other homeowners knew about the list and could they have a copy. They were given ONE PAGE, the “H” page, for the name of the road on which The Belfry sits.
It was then that the owners asked to meet with the Town Historian, John Stockbridge, one of the authors of the list, but he refused unless they were represented by their lawyers.*** [This comment didn't make sense to me so I may have heard it wrong: perhaps Stockbridge wouldn't meet with the owners unless he, Stockbridge, had a lawyer. I'll have to wait to see what the local papers say to get that detail correct.]
The owner added that they would never have purchased the Belfry had they known it was on a list. Their experts determined that the home was functionally obsolete not to mention that Chubb refused to insure it. And when the Commission usurped their rights and encumbered their home by putting in on a list without their permission or knowledge, she said they felt betrayed by the Town, as if the property was seized. She ended by saying she felt “the ordinance went profoundly astray.”
John Stockbridge was next to speak, he the Town Historian and chair of the Historic Preservation Commission, the entity that denied the demolition permit.
Mr. Stockbridge spoke of the Master Plan set forth by the Town of Bedford in 2002 which implemented a preservation ordinance for the purpose of determining historic dwellings in town, based on a love of the town and the desire to preserve it.
Mr. Stockbridge said he was “incredulous” that neither the owners, nor the lawyers, nor realtors knew The Belfry was on a survey and stood firm in his contention that the house met enough of historic criteria to be denied application to tear it down.
This, despite the fact the owners were not aware of the list. To back up a bit, the owner in her comments tonight, made reference to the 2002 Ordinance and how she felt it was wonderful that the Town felt so strongly about preservation, BUT the ordinance clearly states the owners must be informed that their home is being considered historic. She said, the previous owners of The Belfry waited nine years to be told and it wasn’t until they, the new owners, purchased it and made known the intention of tearing it down, did the list appear.
No comments from the public were allowed and The Town Board voted to go into Executive Session, which means they discuss and vote in private. After about 20 minutes, they returned:
Photo by Ginnel Real Estate
Motion:
DEMOLITION PERMIT TO BE GRANTED, WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. The section of the home, known as The Belfry, which consists of the living room, front stairs, the actual belfry, (and I believe they said dining room), must remain.
2. The east and south wings of the main house can come down.
3. The demolition must be done in a specific order, the outbuildings first.
4. The owners may relocate the historic Belfry section of the home to another part of the property or if it remains in its current position, they can incorporate it into any new home they design and build.
5. It can also remain as a free-standing building when relocated and the new home can be built without incorporation.
6. The belfry section must be restored to historic specification, whether it sits separately on the property or is attached to the new home.
SOOOOOOOOOOO, I say victory for all. The historic core of the home (interior and exterior) stays and will be restored. The new home will be built. Everyone is happy? BTW, I have chosen not to use the names of the owners here. It is a matter of public record and anyone can find it on their own. I don’t choose to release it. The Bedford Patch article linked here by a reader does mention the owners by name.
Photo by Tom Bartley of Bedford Patch showing the historic belfry section of the home to be preserved
Like this:
Even In The Rain……..
My peonies that face due south have exploded and are drop-dead gorgeous. It’s raining pretty hard but why have a blog if you don’t share share share?
Still many to bloom…
Like this:
I Take My Civic Duty Seriously
I didn’t really have to come back to NY, especially on a rainy day (and a rainy ride from top to bottom of the Merritt), but today is the vote for/against the Bedford School District Budget. Even though my kids are grown and gone and we only availed ourselves of the public school system when one got tossed out of boarding school (oops), I am still a resident and taxpayer so in New York I am.
For what it’s worth, I voted against the budget. It’s still too high for my tastes and increases the property taxes in each of the five towns that make up the district. More than the tax aspect, I am perturbed that our affluent community spends so much money per student and this district didn’t make it on the Best 100 Schools list in the US News and World Report. yes, those polls are not always accurate, but when Yonkers, a town with a real economic diverse population makes the list, our school administration has to sharpen their pens.
Like this:
Parting Shots
Sigh, I have to head back to NY tomorrow, to vote on the school budget and attend the Town meeting on the fate of the Belfry demolition. Today never got sunny, and now it’s quite windy too, so the few flowers blooming stood out as bright beacons against the gray background.
At first glance at the lamp, we thought a giant spider was climbing under the shade!
Wish me luck on my trek back down I-95 and the Merritt.
Like this:
And here I thought I had lousy neighbors. A farm owner decided to build a barn for his horses, in itself not a problem one would think, but when it was smack dab, and I mean smack dab IN FRONT of the neighbor’s house, out came the lawyers and the feuding! But not for the reason you might think. The case has a third party: the Agricultural Conservancy Trust, for, as it turns out, the use of the land on which the barn is being built is part of the litigation.
I’ll stick with the neighbor who has high-voltage driveway lights! Phew.
A view of the barn from the road….you might say, that’s not so bad until you zoom in…..
Closer….
Closest….in your face
In case you don’t understand, the barn is being built by a neighbor, not the people whose house you see here!!!!
Some of the back story as explained in the local newspaper:
Almost two-thirds of the land [on which the new barn sits] ….has been subject since 2005 to conservation restrictions intended to preserve the land for agricultural uses, a legacy created by XXXXXX, who then owned the property and deeded development rights to ACT. Under the deed, ACT manages the uses of the property.
When the new owners sought to buy the land last year, they were required by the conservation restrictions in the deed to get permission for their intended use of the property from ACT.
On June 13, 2011, the new owner wrote saying, “before we purchase the property, we would like written approval from the ACT that we may develop these lots for our intended use.” We understand the land is to be used for agricultural purposes which includes the raising of livestock. Our intended use is to raise horses which we believe fits within the agricultural definition.” To provide care and shelter for the horses, she said she intended to construct “fencing for paddocks, shelters/run-in sheds for horses,” and water lines and power.”
The ACT voted unanimously (6-0) to approve the requested use and construction of three shelters and other improvements “for the purpose of pasturing horses.”
Here begins the critical part:
Four months later, after an inspection of the old barn on the property revealed the need for significant repairs, new owners went back to the ACT seeking permission to build a new barn. The building inspector had denied a permit for a new barn, since ACT managed development rights to the land.
Though [the owners] request wasn’t formally on the ACT agenda, [new owner] asked it for approval to build a barn on the property. The trust’s minutes for its Oct. 5 meeting say that the trust “previously approved the barn as it falls under agriculture in this case,” and instructed a trust member “to write a letter to building inspector.”
The building permit was granted on Oct. 12, and barn construction began the next day.
The people who live in the house being blocked say:
Barn construction by the stone wall got our attention [ya think???] so we appealed the granting of the permit for building the barn to the Zoning Board of Review. And he won.
Now here’s where I think this story is strange. How on earth could a permit be issued for a building so close to another property line and how on earth didn’t the neighbor know about the barn before it was being built that it couldn’t have been stopped or re-positioned BEFORE construction, and now litigation) commence????
After a Dec. 21 hearing, the zoning board concluded that the barn had never been approved by the Trust. In a footnote, the zoning board said it “did not address the issue of whether the raising and stabling of horses on the subject property is agricultural.” Construction of the barn was promptly halted.
On Dec. 23, homeowners whose view is being blocked filed suit against the ACT and the couple building the barn.
The suit argues that “stabling and maintaining horses for private recreational use is not a permitted use” of ACT-managed property. It seeks a permanent injunction against the barn or any similar structure.
Homeowners says he and his wife have no objection to agricultural use of the land, but said that “recreational horseback riding,” which is what he says the farm owners have in mind, is not an “agricultural” use of the land. “To me,” he says, “an equestrian activity is not the same as a working farm, and working farms are what the Ag Trust is supposed to support.”
Another concern expressed by the homeowner whose view is being blocked relates to the estimated $25,000 in transfer taxes he says paid to the town ACT. “When we bought our house seven years ago, I was surprised to find that I had to pay a substantial tax for the benefit of the Ag Trust. I have never paid a tax more cheerfully,” he said.
“I would have been less cheerful if I had thought that I was also being forced to support a hobby such as recreational horseback riding. Our hope is that as a result of this suit, land for which the development rights have been deeded to the Ag Trust will only be used for true agricultural purposes,” he said.
A hearing was set for March 2 in Superior Court but I could not find any documents that this was the docket or settled. The barn sits unfinished so I have to presume the case is still in litigation. I would have sued the barn-builders for being jerks for even considering putting something right there but maybe Rhode Island Law doesn’t have a jerk clause? I vote it should!!
Like this:
At What Price?
An absolutely adorable cottage down the road from us is for sale, lived in a long time by a couple now deceased. I would publish the listing link but I have on purpose kept the the name of our Rhode Island town out of this blog and I don’t want to ruin a good thing. Plus, I have no intention of making the sellers of this house angry with me for singling them out. This post is all about the unknowns of purchasing a home, not the home itself.
Anyway, the heirs have decided to sell the cottage, starting back at least three, maybe four years, at a price that made locals gag but was obviously targeting wealthy-out-of-towners to come, tear it down and build a dream home here. My recollection is the first price was over $3million.
The cottage has vintage charm but by today’s standards is antiquated and not how most families choose to spend a summer. And no ocean view, a view of a pond that is okay, but nothing to write home about.
Now, crux of this conundrum, the land behind the cottage. For sale, and approved by the town to be divided into buildable home lots.
What charm and appeal the home HAD is now in complete jeopardy. Will a new house block the view they now enjoy of the pond? The cottage price is down to “only” $1.75m, a price that seems to me to still be sky-high, given the total loss of value the land may incur once the new homes are built.
It sits, rented some of the summer, but sits, waiting for someone to decide at what price it has value. For me, the unknowns give it almost no value. Sad.
Like this:
Gone The Day. Gone The Sun.
A little postprandial stroll to the beach on what ended up being a gorgeous day.
Mulch on the hoof – seaweed galore on the beach. Mr. EOS was salivating to get truck and rake but it’s about to get dark any minute.
Beach club
Swallows heading back to Capistrano.
Like this:
That’s One Giant Leap for My Kind Man
Be still my heart. Mr. EOS is taking Good Stuff TO the neighbor’s dumpster. Yes, as in he’s throwing things away. My Mother’s Day dream has come true!
