What was to be the final hearing on a controversial variance application to build a self-storage facility at 130 Washington Crossing Pennington Road continues. The Hopewell Township Zoning Board of Adjustment convened virtually on October 29 for the session, which included a third round of expert testimony and public comment, highlighting ongoing community concerns about the project.
For prior MercerMe coverage on this issue,
- Hopewell Township Zoning Board to Hear Controversial Warehouse Application
- Hopewell Zoning Board Hears Self-Storage Proposal, Not Warehouse
- Hearing on Self-Storage Facility Continues with Expert Testimony
Procedural Delay Explained
Procedurally, this hearing was intended to conclude the pending variance. However, the absence of one Zoning Board member triggered a rule that allows the applicant to choose either to postpone the vote or continue the hearing, according to Zoning Board attorney, Kevin Van Hise.
Although the applicant’s attorney, Robert Ridolfi, said he wanted as many board members present as possible, the parties agreed to continue with testimony.
Expert Testimony Continues
Industry analyst Katherine D’Agostino continued her expert testimony for the opposition..
When asked by Township Planner Frank Banisch if there was a reason to deny the variance and if the facility is “doomed for failure?,” D’Agostino answered “Yes. The facility would fail and then there would be a large building waiting for a new use.” She concluded that there would be an oversupply of storage facilities even considering the population increase from new developments
Ridolfi questioned whether D’Agostino had considered all the anticipated development to Scotch Road, and requested that she inquire about the number of basements and attics expected in those communities.
Public Comment
Public comments largely opposed the project, and were mostly concerns about maintaining the area’s character and the storage facility’s potential incompatibility with surrounding uses.
Architect and former Hopewell Township resident Max Hayden referenced the historic home that stood on the property, urging the Board to “plan smartly to reinforce the beauty of the Township not destroy it.”
Another speaker referred to the project as a “warehouse” prompting Chairperson Cane to halt the comment and clarify that the term “warehouse” should not be used. The member of the public urged the board: “What will you do to ensure it won’t be used as a warehouse?” After some discussion, Cane said the Board will consider including clear language in the resolution.
Additional comments echoed worries that this would set a precedent for more variances and spot zoning. “I don’t feel this is in the community’s best interest,” said Dr. Bernard Hoffman.
However, one resident spoke in support of the property owner’s interest: “The owner of the property is a taxpayer as well. And an office park is no longer a great use.” Someone else brought up the potential benefit of increased tax ratables.
The hearing will carry over to the next Zoning Board meeting, Wednesday, November 6 at 7pm when the parties will determine a subsequent hearing date.
Image from plans submitted by the applicant: https://www.hopewelltwp.org/DocumentCenter/View/11605/B91-L1-Plans
