A Farmhouse endorsement
To the editor:
I have lived in Pennington since 1996 and in the greater Princeton area since 1983. It’s a great place to live and to raise a family. However, like many of us, I am concerned that in the hustle of daily contemporary life we have fewer and fewer opportunities to make connections with our neighbors, and even to connect in meaningful ways with our own families.
That is why I believe the proposed restoration of The Farmhouse on Carter Road in Hopewell Township into a restaurant and special events venue is so important to our community. Here’s a chance to use what has become lovely green space, since Lucent’s departure from the property, for a venture that would bring families, neighbors and friends together to celebrate milestone events (weddings, anniversaries, graduations, etc.) or simply to have a nice dinner in a beautiful, country setting.
I heartily endorse The Farmhouse proposal and look forward to enjoying its community-building effects, as well as its fine cuisine.
Steve LeMenager, Pennington
Petrie should listen to his neighbors
To the editor:
We have been residents of this community for a very long time and have participated in many a battle to preserve the unique quality of life our area provides us all. We also went to all the hearings relevant to the planning and zoning boards’ decisions to grant the Farmhouse a readaptive use variance. We left for a brief vacation assured our elected and appointed officials made a decision based on careful regard for all information.
Upon our return we find a lawsuit pending that suggests the zoning board’s "primary" reasons for granting the use variance was the board’s belief that the property slated for the restaurant has historic value. That clearly is not the primary reason we heard for the ruling.
What we heard was that EAT, Inc. and Jphn Marshall (and Mrs. Simpkins) have a long and unblemished reputation in this community, that they operate a first-class establishment, that their word is their bond. We heard how the readaptive use variance would not allow Townsend Properties to further modify the GDP they were granted when they purchased the property. We heard how the Farmhouse would maintain the integrity of the current look of the old farmhouse, which clearly will be more pleasing to the eye than a multistory square box.
We heard Max Hayden make it clear that the farmhouse was not historic, just worth saving for its beauty and suitability to be easily transformed into a restaurant.
Lastly, we heard how noise, water and traffic were dealt with to everyones’ satisfaction and most importantly, we heard how this community and our surrounding neighbors give the concept of a first class restaurant, which maintains the rural nature of the area, an overwhelming endorsement.
Fortunately, Robert Kraeger has stepped out of this suit, clearly realizing that suggesting Mr. Marshall would use or bribe anyone is so far from his known reputation as to be ridiculous.
We now ask Ted Petrie to listen to his fellow residents, including the undersigned, and step aside and let the Farmhouse restaurant become a reality.
Frank and Martha McDougald, Hopewell Township
Cultural insensitivity
To the editor:
In the summer of 2003, Hopewell Borough suffered from a spate of negative media coverage not just locally, but nationally as well, due to the appointment to the Borough Council of a white supremacist with explicitly anti-Semitic views. The Borough Council and the mayor struggled through July and August to counter the impression that the town was insensitive to its diverse populace. In an effort to address such claims, on Aug. 4, 2003, the council passed a resolution affirming their "commitment to faithfully, impartially, and justly represent each and every member of the community that we have sworn to serve."
We were reassured to see the Valley’s elected officials and community members go to great lengths to avow their commitment all of to the Valley’s residents. As a result, we were shocked to realize that the 2003 Hopewell Harvest Fair purportedly an event held to celebrate the entire Hopewell Valley community was scheduled for Rosh Hashanah. Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish new year, is a religious holiday that starts off the High Holidays, which include Yom Kippur, and are the most sacred of Jewish religious celebrations. The scheduling choice did not go overlooked on these pages. As a writer to the editor noted on Sept. 25, 2003, "it is disheartening, especially given the district-wide emphasis on ‘Building a Culture of Respect,’ that the fair is being held on one of the highest holy days in the Jewish religion."
Although no public response appeared, those of us who have been a part of this community for years and who were offended by the scheduling mishap considered it just that an honest oversight. We were deeply disheartened, to see in a recent edition of this paper that the Hopewell Harvest Fair committee has selected this year’s event to be held on Sept. 25 Yom Kippur, the day of Atonement and the most solemn day in the Jewish calendar.
If Hopewell cares to preserve its reputation as an open and welcoming community, we would hope that the private businesses sponsoring the event, and Hopewell Elementary School and Hopewell Valley Regional School District, which approve the use of the public property for the event, act now to avoid what is shaping up to be a repeat performance of insensitivity. Despite the fact that the fair is held annually on the same date every year the fourth or last Saturday of September the event committee should alter their bylaws or show some flexibility in selecting a date that will allow all of the Valley’s residents to participate in what we have always considered to be a festive and inclusive, celebration of community.
Jessica Wilkinson, Pennington; Lisa Weintraub, Hopewell Township; Nancy Barich, Hopewell Township
Board did its job
To the editor:
I recently heard that a few people chose to sue the township regarding the unanimous decision to approve the Main Street Farmhouse.
Having attended two of the three long township hearings on this matter, I find such an action remarkable.
I simply want to state that I respected the in-depth nature of the hearings, the board’s capacity to listen to every person who spoke, the thorough review conducted into Main Street’s intended use of the facilities and time spent to ensure that Main Street would be a good neighbor.
It was clearly stated that any group that chose to have legal representation needed to have comments directed through that legal representative.
David Collins, Hopewell Township
Enough is enough
To the editor:
As a resident of Hopewell Township, and former attendee of the recent hearings held to consider the application of a zoning variance for the Carter Road site to restaurant use, I am amazed and confused that now one man feels it necessary to attempt to rewrite history.
Not only was this plan very carefully considered, with all points of view thoroughly vetted in the process, but I heard the most support coming from those who live within a stone’s throw of the site.
I could write at length the reasons why the approval makes so much sense, but those reasons have already been expressed ad nauseum at the proper forum. Its time to move on, and let John Marshall and his highly capable team create something we can all enjoy close to home.
As an aside, I would ask that this case be tossed if only because I see no reason why my tax dollars need pay for an attorney to represent a township board that did nothing more than its job! Enough is enough.
Frits Besselaar, Hopewell Township
Setting record straight
To the editor:
Last week, the Hopewell Township Committee passed an ordinance enabling the use of residential barns and outbuildings to assist the township’s affordable housing obligation.
During that discussion, I asked Committeewoman Arlene Kemp, the township’s liaison to affordable housing, to place this new ordinance within the wider context of the townships Council on Affordable Housing (COAH) obligations. I also asked her to clarify our present and likely future total of affordable housing obligation.
She responded that Hopewell Township presently has a surplus of 16 affordable units but that no estimate has yet been assembled for our obligation in round three.
Arguing that my points had nothing to do with the ordinance under consideration, Mayor Vanessa Sandom prohibited me from completely correcting the record. Please permit me to do so now.
Ms. Kemp’s first estimate of 16 units differs substantially from her estimate of last year, a surplus of 67 units. A surplus of 16 units is the correct, current number. However, there is indeed an estimate of our future obligation.
The Hopewell Township Affordable Housing Committee minutes of Dec. 17, 2003 include the following paragraphs:
Township Planner Michael Bolan presented his thoughts on the possible future COAH requirements for round three. He stated that past growth statistics indicate a range of 370 to 540 (new residential) units will be built in the township in the next 10 years. Under the present rules, 37-54 units will have to be affordable. During the 1990s, approximately 1,700,000 square feet of office space was built. If the same amount of office space is built over the next 10 years, the township will be obligated to provide another 170 units.
In this scenario, Hopewell Township’s total new obligation would be between 207-224 new affordable units. The new ordinance just adopted with much fanfare may provide 10 of these units, a start but not the real solution. Ms. Kemp sited the experience in East Amwell (whose total obligation was 11 units) and Tewksbury, but neither of these towns has any experience like Hopewell Township (with massive building recently at BMS and Merrill Lynch).
To continue from the Affordable Housing minutes:
Ms. Kemp wants to pursue the idea of building a multifamily affordable housing units on Grandview Avenue. Mike Bolan will investigate the idea and develop cost figures for the project. Both Ms. Kemp and Ms. Sandom favor the idea of scattering affordable housing around the township. Russ Swanson expressed concern that this approach will be too expensive. Mr. Swanson stated that many residents would be displeased when multifamily housing is built in zones reserved for single family. Ms. Sandom stated that she did not believe that this would be the case.
Hopewell Township deserves to have an open debate on these issues. As a community, we must meet these obligations or the state will step in and meet them for us. I believe we should meet the majority of these obligations by relying on existing investments in public water and sewer, and not with a new sewer and water infrastructure spread throughout the township. Spreading these obligations throughout the township will place at risk the natural water resources they we have fought so hard to protect with our new zoning.
Ms. Sandom and Ms Kemp want to rely upon community based sewer systems that are extremely expensive (hardly supportive of affordable housing and which would therefore very likely require township-wide subsidies). I firmly believe that all such infrastructural systems must be paid by the users of such systems and not by the general taxpayers. These are the points that I attempted to make and which Mayor Sandom attempted to silence.
According to state law, we will have one year from the official setting of the rules (expected this summer) to put forth our plan for meeting these obligations. These are challenging issues that will benefit from open dialogue. The time for constructive debate and planning is now.
Jon Edwards, Hopewell Township
Save seats on train
To the editor:
I confess to disagreeing with Mayor Vanessa Sandom on many issues since she was first elected to the Township Committee. However, we now appear to have found a common ground.
My 20-year-old son is gay a fact that was apparent to me when he was about 4 or 5 years old. He came out as a freshman at HoVal much to my dismay, and I, naturally, feared for his safety. I need not have done so, for although other students were naturally curious, he was never harassed at school, for which our family is most grateful.
My initial reaction to his coming out, after the fear, was a selfish feeling that he could never marry and give us grandchildren. But now we have hope, thanks to the brave gays and lesbians who are challenging the continued discrimination against them, and making slow progress toward achieving parity with the rest of society. It is my fervent hope that people won’t allow their irrational fears and religious interpretations get in their way. So, Ms. Sandom, save my family and me five seats on the train!
Maggi Hill, Hopewell Township
The process is complete
To the editor:
I was surprised to read in your March 4 issue that a lawsuit was filed to overturn the zoning board decision for a use variance to EAT, Inc..
I attended the zoning board meeting at which the use variance permitting the operations of a restaurant and catering facility was granted. In general there was much support from the community for the variance and few individuals of opposition. All possible issues and questions were addressed and answered by authorities in their fields and by John Marshall of EAT, Inc. himself. The board came to an unanimous decision to grant the use variance.
The process is complete. Should we not just except the decision and move on? I for one am anxious to see the facility renovated and enjoy a lovely new eatery within my community.
Valerie R. Stuermer, Hopewell Borough
Supports school budget
To the editor:
Hopewell Valley Regional School District’s proposed budget has an increase of only 4.9 percent, the lowest increase in eight years! Compared to other districts, this is one of the lowest increases in the area. The school board continues to do the best for our children at the lowest possible cost. I will be supporting my children’s education and will vote yes on April 20.
Sandy Butler, Hopewell Township
Speaking as a ‘crazy’
To the editor and citizens of Hopewell Township:
Since attending a meeting called by Peter Blicher of Pennington Properties for residents of the north side of Diverty Road and some few other properties adjacent to the Zaitz controlled tract (the proposed TND), I have become more convinced of the need to emphasize some impressions I was left with. The meeting occurred on Feb. 26, but it seems some issues need to be revisited.
Mr. Blicher referred to some "crazies" in the township who have put up TND stickers with slashes through them and have "some other stickers" that are opposed to development. The only group engaged in such activity that I’m aware of is FreeHV. There are also some other unaffiliated, concerned residents from the southern part of the township resisting the TND. I fit in both groups of "crazies." Aside from its being poor judgment to define a group’s political position by one’s unexamined sense of its members’ collective mental health, Mr. Blicher’s situating of the "crazies" statement in the current political discourse as an extremist position is untenable. It is untenable because Mr. Blicher needs to conform to municipal law, and, so far, that land is not zoned for the kind of development Mr. Blicher has in mind.
Being concerned with the aesthetics and tradition of our neighborhood, ecological equity, education and taxes is certainly no more extreme than a salesman trying to sell what isn’t currently legal to develop to people who will never have the legal power to buy it. Mr. Blicher, it needs to be emphasized again and again, is no more than and only a private citizen of Hopewell Township (at least I assume he is) and therefore calls his meetings under the pretext of advancing his private political and economic advantage, just like FreeHV and any other unaffiliated citizen who expresses a view in, like that meeting was, an essentially private forum.
When I present the results of a casual survey I took of my neighbors on Diverty and Reed Roads (a larger population than attended the Feb. 26 meeting), it will be at a formally announced township meeting and, of course, open to the public. In light of statements like "crazies running around with some other stickers," I’d think it advisable that Mr. Blicher conduct his planning meetings in public forums that include the municipal authorities responsible for the zoning changes that would have to be made prior to Mr. Blicher’s doing any work physically impacting the potential TND properties.
Going public could: help open the dialogue Mr. Blicher asked for; show each side how far apart they might be on practical issues; and involve the Planning Board in a role that might provide a practical basis for conducting these discussions.
As it is, there’s no difference in discussions like these and my talking to my neighbors around the recycling buckets.
Bill Piper, Hopewell Township
Vote yes on April 20
To the editor:
Hopewell Valley’s school budget is not about football or marching band. This budget is about education and preparing our children for the future. Eighty-two percent of the proposed budget goes to supporting our children’s education, only 1.14 percent goes to athletics. The numbers speak for themselves. Join me in support of this budget and our children and vote yes on April 20.
Melissa Kiesewetter, Hopewell Township
Great performances
To the editor:
Recently my daughter and I had the privilege to witness the high school performance of "Man of La Mancha."
Our first thought as we exited the performance was: "Bravo, well done!" The students and staff collaborated to provide us with an excellent evening of entertainment. The sets were creative; the singing was outstanding; and our orchestra was first rate.
We were especially impressed with the horse and the mule that had no speaking lines but definitely got our attention. In a time where our students and community have gone through much emotional distress, their performance gave us an opportunity to put the world on pause for a couple of hours and be entertained in a most magical manner.
A special thank you to the students and staff who gave us a wonderful evening of singing and dancing. Our performing arts are alive and well in Hopewell Valley.
Michael Bruno, Hopewell Township
Outsourcing
To the editor:
In these austere times, there should be a serious look at the fiscal responsibility of the spending of school monies (your taxes).
Now, in the manner of presenting a dialogue of spending on nonessential items as opposed to vital relevant academic needs, we will use a media example in making a point.
It should be noted that there is a football field in place at the Hopewell Township municipal recreational complex.
Outsourcing verses in-house expense regarding the football fields: engineering, architectural and constructions costs for relocating, rehabilitating, drainage, detention basin upgrade, paved handicap paths and additional parking areas $200,000.
Concession stands. restrooms, broadcast booth, lighting fixtures and sound arrangements, bleachers etc. $150,000.
High-density turf management: grounds maintenance (mowing, seeding, fertilizing, preparation, lining the field incorporating high quality turf and approved insecticides, herbicides and fungicides with insurance coverage (annually) $100.000.
Voting no on the next school budget priceless.
Outsource and put more money to the academics.
Don Mauer, Hopewell Township
