Search Site
Menu
A challenge to a municipal Zoning Board

03/04/2004

Proposed Carter Road eatery is target of lawsuit

By John Tredrea
Staff Writer

Lawsuit seeking to overturn the Hopewell Township Zoning Board of Adjustment decision was filed in state Superior Court Jan. 30 by township residents Ted Petrie and Robert Kraeger, both residents of Elm Ridge Park.

A plan to put a restaurant in a historic farmhouse at 350 Carter Road, unanimously approved by the Hopewell Township Zoning Board of Adjustment, has sparked a lawsuit against the board.
Other defendants in the case are: Townsend Property Trust Limited Partnership, Towson, Md., and E.A.T., Inc., doing business as Main Street, Rocky Hill.
The zoning board granted a use variance on Nov. 12, 2003, to the applicant, E.A.T. Inc., of Rocky Hill, after conducting several public hearings. The use variance permits the operation of a restaurant, bar, banquet hall and catering facility.
E.A.T. Inc. operates the Main Street Café in Kingston, the Main Street Bistro in Princeton, and a catering business whose headquarters are in Rocky Hill. Plans for the Carter Road site include a main dining area and adjoining porch, a bar and lounge, two private dining rooms, and a kitchen and catering area with a total seating capacity of 218 on the first floor. Plans for the second floor include a ballroom with seating for 200.
The lawsuit seeking to overturn the zoning board decision was filed in state Superior Court Jan. 30 by township residents Ted Petrie and Robert Kraeger, both residents of Elm Ridge Park. An unusual aspect of the suit is that Mr. Kraeger is a member of the township zoning board. His term began Jan. 1, 2003, and ends Dec. 31, 2006. However, he recused himself from the board’s series of hearings on the restaurant proposal. Messrs. Petrie and Kraeger are represented by Princeton attorney Stuart Lieberman.
The lawsuit alleges that John Marshall of E.A.T. Inc. tried to influence the zoning board’s decision on his company’s application by improperly offering Mr. Kraeger a job landscaping the property, should the zoning board, of which Mr. Kraeger was a member, approve the application.
Mr. Marshall denied the accusation on Tuesday, saying he did not know Mr. Kraeger was a member of the zoning board when the job offer was made.
Mr. Marshall said Tuesday: “In late July 2003, I was getting together a team of local professionals to help us get our application before the Planning Board (as noted above, it was switched to the zoning board a few months later). Mr. Kraeger was recommended to me as an experienced landscape architect. I asked if he could help us, but he said he was going out of town and also that, since he was a member of the zoning board, he could not participate. He gave me the names of several other landscape architects. I used one of them. When I spoke to Mr. Kraeger about doing the landscape architecture, I was not aware he was on the zoning board. It was my understanding he stepped down from the board to oppose our application, which he did.”
In an earlier statement made Monday, Mr. Marshall said the approval his firm gained from the zoning board is “unique in that everyone in the township was given the ability to enjoy its outcome. Normally variances are not personal, relevant and valuable to every community member. This suit is so outrageous and infuriating because it potentially results in personal detriment to each and every one of us many times over — the potential loss of the use, public funds, and lovely historic structure.”
The lawsuit also contends that, because he is a member of the township’s Historic Preservation Commission, there was a “conflict of interest” involved in the testimony before the zoning board of Max Hayden, an area architect. Mr. Hayden supported the restaurant plan. He was not paid by E.A.T Inc., Mr. Marshall said Monday, adding that Mr. Hayden is an old friend of his.
The lawsuit says that one of 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 and the restaurant would be a suitable “readaptive”use of the site. The lawsuit maintains, however, that “nothing in the record supports the conclusion that the proposed use of this facility as another of the many high-end restaurants in Mercer County . . . is particularly suitable” for the proposed site.
In the 14-page lawsuit, Mr. Lieberman maintains that, because his clients’ architect was not allowed to testify during the zoning board hearings, the board “never understood the scope and nature of the proposed project, nor the legally allowable intensity of use that such a project may entail.”
Calls to zoning board Chairman William Connolly were not returned before press time.

Our Attorneys

Recent Twitter Posts

  • DEP urged to set tough limit on 1,4-dioxane in drinking water. https://t.co/UESauZowsJ
    1 month ago
  • Beach access issue returns in Cape May County beach community, near the location of a similar issue that was litiga… https://t.co/tWOMcfTqwM
    2 months ago
  • Another effort to make the Delaware Water Gap a national park is underway. https://t.co/C00NZ43nZU
    2 months ago
  • New Jersey seeks designation of Lower Hackensack River as a federal Superfund site. https://t.co/czOI3hDNb2
    2 months ago

Recent Blog Posts

Environmental Hearing Requests by Third Parties: An Update

In 2010 this author contributed an article discussing the difficulty that anyone other than an applicant had in administratively contesting a permit. Stuart J. Lieberman and Shari M. Blecher, “It’s
Read More
Environmental Hearing Requests by Third Parties: An Update

Hoboken cannot block residential development with new zoning ordinances, Supreme Court holds

In Shipyard Assocs., LP v. City of Hoboken, 242 N.J. 23 (2020), the Supreme Court held that the City of Hoboken could not block a waterfront residential development by enacting
Read More
Hoboken cannot block residential development with new zoning ordinances, Supreme Court holds

Long standing land use attorney Michele Donato joins Princeton’s Lieberman Blecher & Sinkevich as “of counsel”

The law firm of Lieberman, Blecher & Sinkevich is  proud to announce that Michele R. Donato, Esq. has become Of Counsel with their firm. Ms. Donato has specialized in land use,
Read More
Long standing land use attorney Michele Donato joins Princeton’s Lieberman Blecher & Sinkevich as “of counsel”

RLUIPA case in SDNY challenges alleged discrimination against Orthodox Jewish community

In December 2020, the Southern District of New York filed a lawsuit under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) against the Village of Airmont. The suit alleges
Read More
RLUIPA case in SDNY challenges alleged discrimination against Orthodox Jewish community

In the media

  • Gulf Coast Town Center facing foreclosure

    Naples Daily News, September 16, 2015

    Wells Fargo filed a lawsuit Sept. 8 against an affiliate of CBL & Associates, the owners of the decadeold, 1.2 million-square-foot mall in south Fort Myers for a $190.9 million unpaid loan. The center has 94 stores on 204 acres, with such anchors as Super Target, Belk, Best Buy, Dick’s Sporting Goods, Marshalls and Costco...

    Read More
  • Town liable for private company's leaking underground tanks, court rules

    NJ.com Jul 26, 2017

    CRANFORD -- A couple that owned a businesses in town and became sick from leaking underground tanks owned by an adjacent business can sue the township for damages because the tanks were partially ...

    Read More
  • Dark Waters: How a Class Action Catapulted NJ to Forefront of 'Forever Chemicals' Battle

    NJ Law Journal Jan 09, 2020

    As property owners become increasingly aware of PFAS contamination, and as individuals exposed to PFAS learn of the health risks associated with exposure, liability will likely affect entire supply chains.

    Read More
  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
  4. 4
  5. 5
Contact Our Firm

Quick Contact Form