Applicant proposes new building with about 5,000 square feet of retail and office space.
By Marianne Hooker
At its May 7 meeting, the Hopewell Township Zoning Board of Adjustment heard a request for a use variance for the site of the former Easy Street restaurant and bar, located on Route 31.
A decision on this case has been deferred until next month’s meeting.
The board also granted two hardship variances for residential properties. In the first case, the variance will enable the homeowner to expand an existing garage. The other variance will allow the applicants to construct a building addition with a family room and a garage.
Use variance for Easy Street property Hopewell Hills LLC was represented by attorney Robert Ridolfi, who presented the case with the assistance of planning consultant Tamara Lee.
The property in question is located at 253 Route 31 North, and was recently rezoned to fall within the Mountain Resource Conservation zone.
The applicant proposes to put up a new building with about 5,000 square feet of retail and office space. It would use the same footprint as the ruined structure that once housed the Easy Street bar and restaurant. Ms. Lee said the retail space would be restricted to what might be termed "green" uses, such as a sporting goods store, a fishing and hunting center, or a store that sells running shoes. The applicant does not envision a typical commercial development on the site.
The minimum lot size in the Mountain Resource Conservation zone is 14 acres. Since the parcel in question is only 3.6 acres, the proposed development would require a use variance. In addition, a variance would be needed because the property has a house on it already. This is a single-family home that has been renovated by the owner, Jarod Machinga. Under terms of the zoning ordinance, a variance is required if there is more than one principal use on a property. At the meeting, the applicant was seeking the use variance only. A site plan with specifics will be submitted if the variance is approved.
Mr. Machinga said he looks for properties that he can bring back to life. The Easy Street building was last used as a restaurant about 10-11 years ago. When he acquired it, he did not buy the liquor license that went with it. Mr. Machinga said it was always his intention to renovate the structure for commercial use. Last year he obtained a demolition permit to gut the building. Before the work could be finished, the roof collapsed due to the heavy snow.
The property in question is very close to Stony Brook Creek. At one time there was a pond to the right of the lot, but the embankment has failed, and now there is just a stream. Mr. Machinga said he had talked with Ted Stiles (of Friends of Hopewell Valley Open Space) about selling the Delaware and Raritan Greenway a conservation easement. The area to be preserved would be the portion closest to Stony Brook Creek.
Ms. Lee said the proposed commercial use would not normally be permitted in the Mountain Resource Conservation zone. However, in her view the proposed development could be installed without any impairment to the zone plan. She felt that if properly designed, the project could actually advance certain purposes of the zone plan, such as protecting sensitive areas and maintaining the rural character of the neighborhood.
As now planned, the retail and office uses would be located nearest the highway, and the more environmentally fragile parts of the property would be preserved in their natural state. The applicant would consider reestablishing the pond, which would have benefits from the standpoint of water quality. Ms. Lee said there would be a vegetative buffer between the residential and non-residential portions of the site. The parking area would be located on the side of the building away from the highway. She also noted that the proposed gravel parking lot would help to filter some stormwater runoff. In developing the site, the applicant would remove quite a bit of the impervious surface coverage that exists at present.
To obtain a use variance, an applicant must show special reasons why the variance should be granted. Ms. Lee said the proposed use would be an appropriate one, which would promote the health, safety, and welfare of the community. The highway access is a key feature of the site, which gives it a certain suitability for commercial development. She noted that the property had a commercial use there previously. Ms. Lee mentioned that there is already a prospective tenant for the proposed building, one that would have a relatively low impact in terms of signs and lighting. The plans include two retail spaces on the south side of the building, with an office to the rear looking out on the woods.
Mr. Connolly took issue with Ms. Lee’s statement that the project would not impair the zone plan. In his opinion, a major objective of the zone plan was to prevent commercial development along the stretch of Route 31 north of Pennytown.
Board attorney, Steven Goodell, addressed the issue of whether the previous commercial use on this property could be considered to be abandoned. From a legal standpoint, if a use is not pursued for one year, it is presumed to have been abandoned. In this case, the applicant does not propose to revive the previous land use. Instead, he is contending that there are special reasons why the proposed change in use should be approved.
Michael Bolan, the board’s planner, presented his assessment of the proposal. He noted that as far back as 1978, none of the township’s Master Plans have recommended commercial uses along this portion of Route 31. He also mentioned several areas in which the proposed development could not attain the standards set forth in the zoning ordinance. The proposed building site does not meet the required front yard setback of 200 feet. In addition, the proposed lot coverage would be three times the amount permitted for this zone. Mr. Bolan also said the plan did not include enough parking for the uses being proposed.
There were no comments on this application from any members of the public. There was some discussion among board members concerning the wisdom of bringing new commercial development to this stretch of Route 31. Few of them seemed to favor this idea, no matter how carefully the proposed installation were designed.
Mr. Ridolfi asked the board to postpone a decision on this application until next month’s meeting. In the meantime, he asked them to read a point-by-point commentary by Ms. Lee, showing how the project would advance the planning goals set forth in the land use element of the township Master Plan.
Garage expansion Donald Lebentritt, who lives at 26 Washington Crossing-Pennington Road, has gotten an OK for an 8-foot side yard setback variance in order to expand the existing attached garage. The present garage can accommodate two cars. However, Mr. Lebentritt is an automobile aficionado, and wanted to expand the garage so all five of his cars will fit inside.
Mr. Lebentritt said the location of the septic system limits his options for adding on to the garage. A side-entry design appears to be the best alternative. The proposed addition would be the same height as the existing garage, and there would be a buffer of trees to provide screening. The side of the garage facing the neighbor would not have any windows.
Building addition The board OK’d the request of Theodore and Kathleen LaPlant (represented by attorney Mark Solomon) of 225 Van Dyke Road. They plan to build an addition consisting of a family room, an extension to the kitchen, and a two-car garage. The plans require a 30-foot front yard setback variance and a 45-foot right side yard setback variance. The property is about ¾ of an acre, and it is located in the recently created Valley Resource Conservation zone.
Mr. Solomon said the applicants could reduce the size of the proposed side yard setback variance if they built on to the left of the house. However, there are some trees in this area that they would like to preserve. As now planned, the garage could make use of the existing driveway. The proposed addition will be lower in height than the rest of the house. Mr. LaPlant said there is a buffer of vegetation between the proposed addition and the nearest house on that side.

