Cellular tower application withdrawn.
By Marianne Hooker
At its Feb. 5 meeting, the Hopewell Township Zoning Board of Adjustment approved a hardship variance that will allow construction of an addition to a house on Darrow Drive.
The board heard initial testimony on another variance request involving an addition to a house on Forrest Blend Drive. The decision on this application was postponed to next month’s meeting, so the applicant can consider some alternatives suggested by a neighbor.
It was announced at the meeting that Voicestream Wireless has withdrawn its application to build a cellular tower on a site at Hardy Nurseries, off Pennington-Rocky Hill Road.
***
Front yard setbacks for a corner lot Frank Barham of 100 Darrow Drive requested front yard setback variances of 18 feet and 23 feet. His house is situated diagonally on a corner lot, so from the standpoint of the zoning ordinance it is considered to have two front yards.
Mr. Barham said the house was originally built with its own well and septic system. A 75-foot front yard setback was required for this reason. The septic system has since been retired, but the well is still in use.
The applicant plans to build a new family room that would serve as the main entrance to the house. Mr. Barham said that although the house is a large one, it is divided into a number of smaller rooms. They would like to add a room that can accommodate large gatherings of the extended family.
Architect John Hutcheson spoke briefly about the design of the proposed addition. He said the shape of the room was designed to accommodate the existing low-pitched roof.
Mr. Barham said it would not be possible to put the proposed family room at the rear of the house, because that space is already occupied by a swimming pool. There are also impediments to either side (garage, screened porch, and master bedroom). Board member Richard Willever asked whether it might be possible to combine some of the existing rooms to make a larger space. Mr. Barham said this could not be done without losing some of the bedrooms.
Board Chairman William Connolly noted that the lot in question is one of the largest in Princeton Farms. Some of the others are only a quarter or a half this size. Because of the curve of the road, he felt the proposed addition would not be obtrusive to the nearest neighbors. No one from the public had any comments on the variance request. The board voted 5-1 to approve Mr. Barham’s application, with Mr. Willever casting the dissenting vote.
***
Side yard setback Eric Max, who lives at 3 Forrest Blend in Titusville, requested a 7-foot left side yard setback variance to build a 20- by 20-foot attached garage. Although the house has an attached garage at present, he plans to convert the existing garage to a family room.
Mr. Max described the layout of his home, which is shaped like a horseshoe. He said two architects had advised him on the proposed expansion, and a number of alternatives had been considered. These included building a second story onto the house, building a smaller garage, and building a garage that was free-standing. Of these options, they felt that the proposed location and configuration would be the least intrusive to the neighbors. Mr. Max said he had a letter of support from the neighbors next door, whom he thought would be most directly affected.
Unlike the present side-entry garage, the new garage would face the front of the property. Mr. Max said they planned to reduce the paved area of the driveway, in order to conform with the township requirements concerning impervious surface coverage.
During the public comment period, the board heard testimony from Chris Fuges, who lives across the street from Mr. Max at 4 Forrest Blend. He said most of the garages in this neighborhood are entered from the side, except for the ones on corner lots. For this reason, he felt that the proposed plan would be out of keeping with the rest of the neighborhood. Another area of concern was the loss of a parking area for visitors in the side yard. Since off-street parking is not permitted in a front yard, he said visitors to the house would have to park on the street. In his view, this would not be a desirable scenario.
Mr. Fuges outlined five possible options for the proposed garage, some of which he did not see as viable. The one he liked best involved building a detached garage to the rear of the building. This would comply with the side yard setback requirements; however, it would increase the amount of impervious surface coverage, and would thus require a variance of a different kind. Board chairman William Connolly said that it also would be possible to redesign the proposed garage to give it a side entry.
In view of the many different options to be considered, Mr. Connolly suggested the application be postponed until next month’s meeting. This would allow the various alternatives to be discussed among the neighbors. It would also provide time to give notice to the neighbors if an impervious surface coverage variance is needed. Mr. Max acceded to this suggestion.
***
In other business, the board adopted resolutions of memorialization to formalize its approval last month of applications by Orest Chaykowsky, David Wycoff, and Sprint Spectrum.

