Downzoning vote expected Sept. 20

Written comment period over

By: John Tredrea
   The Hopewell Township Committee is expected to vote on three ordinances that would implement downzoning during its Sept. 20 meeting.
   Prior to voting, committee members will respond to comments and questions from the public hearing, the mayor said.
   At the Sept. 6 meeting, at which the committee had planned to adopt the ordinances, the governing body instead agreed to give those who wish to respond in writing on the proposed measures until the close of business hours today, Sept. 13, to do so.
   The comments will have to be delivered to the township clerk’s office, which closes at 4:30 p.m. The office is in the municipal services building, on Washington Crossing, just west of Scotch Road.
   Once the deadline for submitting written comment passes, the public hearing officially will be over and the written comments will be an official part of that record.
   The Sept. 6 committee meeting was the governing body’s second attempt to downzone that is, reduce the permitted intensity of land-use — of three-fourths of the 58-square mile township. The public hearing originally got under way at a special committee meeting Aug. 23.
   The Township Committee’s first downzoning attempt, enacted in July 2000, was invalidated on a technicality by state Superior Court Judge Linda Feinberg in the spring. The judge said the township neglected to send legal notices on the attempt to all property owners who were supposed to receive such notices under law.
   The three ordinances that are the focus of the public hearing now are "very similar" to the downzoning ordinances adopted last year, and "the impact on homeowners is the same," township mayor Marylou Ferrara said during the first public hearing. "There are some minor wording changes to make them more user-friendly," she added.
   Under the ordinances, most of the northern one-third of the township would be changed from a residential zone requiring lots at least 3 acres in size to a residential zone requiring lots at least 6 acres in size. Most of the central one-third would be changed from 2-acre to 4-acre residential zoning. Several areas in the southern and central township would be changed from commercial to residential use including 440 acres owned by Merrill Lynch east of Scotch Road and north of I-95, as well as a much smaller tract of land owned by Trap Rock Industries between its Pennington Mountain quarry and state Route 31. Both Merrill Lynch and Trap Rock sued the township over last year’s downzoning attempt.
   Public comment during the Sept. 6 township meeting was about evenly divided between backers and opponents of the proposed downzoning. The issues addressed were similar to those raised during previous public hearings.
   Former township Mayor John Hart, the first to speak during the Sept. 6 public hearing, said the attempt to rezone land along Route 31 from commercial to residential is a mistake. "You need some balance," Mr. Hart said. "You’re trying to eliminate 70 percent of the township’s commercial district with these ordinances … I don’t know any developers who’d be interested in building residential on Route 31 — that’s a business district. If houses were built there, you’d get nonstop complaints from the residents about the noise from the quarry and 84 Lumber and trucks on the highway."
   Erwin Harbat also opposed the proposed downzoning, particularly the change, from commercial to residential, of 440 acres owned by Merrill Lynch. "As a taxpayer, I think this is a big mistake," Mr. Harbat said. "I’d rather see the township negotiate with Merrill Lynch than spend money defending zoning changes in court."
   Defenders of the proposed downzoning have said it will help prevent overutilization of the township’s groundwater. During the Sept. 6 meeting, Scotch Road resident Gene Ramsey addressed this topic.
   "This is a complex issue," Mr. Ramsey said. "There are property rights and water rights involved." He added that, during a 1991 drought, his well went dry, as did those of about 20 of his neighbors. "Overdevelopment over the years had drawn down the aquifer," he said. "We need to protect our water resources."
   Resident Bob Kesces agreed. "The water capacity of our area will not sustain the present zoning," he declared.
   Resident Tom Niederer, a member of a group of township landowners who sued the township over the first downzoning attempt, said the downzoning would be an unfair "taking" by the township of between 25 and 40 percent of the value of 230 acres the Niederer family owns in the west-central portion of the township. "We use less than 1 percent of the groundwater recharge on our land," Mr. Niederer said. "The downzoning is asking me to solve groundwater problems elsewhere at my own expense."