EDITOR’S NOTEBOOK
By Ruth Luse
When the story of what EAT, Inc., wants to do with the old white farmhouse at 350 Carter Road first appeared in this paper in September, I became intrigued with the idea of seeing it become The Farmhouse a country eating and catering establishment.
The concept immediately brought back memories of the gracious Princeton Inn, which ceased being an inn and became Princeton Inn College in 1970 in response to a need resulting from the admission of women to the university. That inn, says the PU Web site, "built in 1924-25, was a gracious, rambling hotel. On the rear terrace, overlooking the pond of Springdale golf course, where the British had made a temporary stand during the Battle of Princeton, guests could sip a cocktail and listen to the music of the carillon float down from the Cleveland Tower."
Because of this memory, it struck me that there could be no better use for 350 Carter Road than a lovely country inn. We have nothing like it in Hopewell Valley now or in any other nearby area I can think of.
As hearings on the application progressed, I found myself relating more and more to those who wore tags saying "Farmhouse Yes" at the Oct. 12 session on the plan.
At the outset, Michael Bolan, Hopewell Township’s planning consultant, said the Townsend tract is subject to a general development plan (GDP), which already had been approved by the township Planning Board. The GDP permits up to 800,000 square feet of laboratory and office space, much of which already exists. The GDP also permits restaurants that serve the employees of businesses on the site. Mr. Bolan explained that the proposed restaurant and banquet hall, because it would serve a wider public, needed a use variance from the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Thus the hearings before the zoners.
Detailed coverage of this application was published in this paper in September, October, November (when the use variance was granted with conditions), December and January (when the site plan was OK’d with conditions). During that period, we heard little or nothing about any opposition to the plan. So, after the January session, I incorrectly assumed that all was well and that soon the white farmhouse would begin to undergo the changes needed to make it into a restaurant.
But then came Ted Petrie’s lawsuit against the zoning board, Townsend and EAT, Inc. The firm of Lieberman & Blecher of Princeton is handling the suit. During the hearings, Stuart Lieberman represented three neighbors opposed to the plan.
Robert Kraeger, a member of the zoning board, recused himself from the hearings on this application and was until March 1 we learned Thursday afternoon one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit.
However, that day Mr. Kraeger informed those involved that he no longer would be part of any legal action against the zoning board and that he was withdrawing his name from the suit, but was not withdrawing his testimony against the applicant.
Issues that Mr. Petrie and Mr. Lieberman raised at various sessions included:
At Mr. Lieberman’s request, architect Stephen Rhoads said the building could never be certified as a historic structure, since the older part is only 18 percent of the whole. He said the farmhouse building did not meet his definition of adaptive reuse. In response to that, David Schultz, architect for the applicant, said that under Department of the Interior rules, a building could be designated as historic if it is 33 years old or older. The building in question goes far beyond this standard.
Mr. Petrie said the applicant was seeking to expand the permitted use. He said a restaurant serving the general public would bring in much more traffic than a Townsend-tract-only cafeteria and would generate more wastewater. He did not buy the historic preservation argument and said putting a restaurant in the research office zone would encourage sprawl, thereby being detrimental to the Master Plan and the zone plan.
Mr. Petrie said data used to estimate wastewater treatment flows should have been available for public review and questioned the applicability of the data from John Marshall’s other restaurant.
Mr. Lieberman said that except in the case of an inherently beneficial use, such as a school or hospital, a proposed use must be found to promote the general welfare because the site is particularly suited to that use. In this case, he said, the necessary standard of proof had not been met. He also said the use would do violence to the township Master Plan, that converting the Townsend tract to a condominium form of ownership went against the spirit of the GDP, and that the proposed installation could claim an excessive share of the wastewater treatment capacity for the Townsend tract.
Mr. Petrie asked what would happen if the facility used more sewage treatment capacity than predicted. Could this, in combination with other developments on the Townsend tract, cause the on-site treatment plant to exceed its capacity?
Others who expressed concerns about the plan during the hearings included: Joan Hall, who said the proposed installation could weaken the carefully crafted GDP for the Townsend tract; Barbara Delafield, who said that granting the use variance would open the door to other non-approved uses of the Townsend tract and asked the board to uphold the current zoning for this site; George Ramsdell, who said the applicant had not demonstrated a hardship and that the proposed restaurant should be restricted to areas that are zoned to permit it; and Lisa Bass, who had concerns about how Townsend might develop the remaining portion of the site. She added that approval of the use variance would mean a change to condominium ownership and multiple uses on the tract.
Call me naive, but I believe the members of the Hopewell Township Zoning Board of Adjustment, who went through many hours of testimony on this application, surely had answers to these concerns that satisfied them or they would not have given the application the approvals it needed.
I also find myself agreeing with those who spoke in support of the plan even though some had concerns during the hearings:
For example:
Architect Max Hayden, who has done much to spruce up the appearance of "beautiful downtown Mt. Rose," said part of the structure dates back to 1830, He called it a Federal-style building "one of the few grander buildings in the eastern part of the township," and noted that the surrounding vista is very much worth preserving. He added that a fine restaurant at this site could become a cornerstone of the community.
George Hawkins, executive director of the Stony Brook-Millstone Watershed Association and a neighbor of the property, said he personally had mixed feelings about the application, because it would result in an increase in the traffic going by his door. He also wondered what might happen if the restaurant failed, but said he favored the proposed restaurant, which he hoped would provide a community gathering place.
Landis Eaton, who said the restaurant would help to bring the community together.
David Collins, who said Main Street would be making a major investment in the property and could be trusted to protect it.
Tim Perkins, who said the proposal would be an asset to the neighborhood, and would provide a unique rural entrance to the community.
I hope that before big bucks are spent by everyone concerned defending and fighting this plan that a meeting of the minds can be reached. Seldom do we have a chance to preserve something so fine in a way that so many can enjoy. This is one idea for Hopewell Valley’s future about which I really am excited.