Snuff mill is now fodder for Helmetta rumor mill

Question of ownership
stirs residents

By tara petersen
Staff Writer

Snuff mill is now fodder
for Helmetta rumor mill
Question of ownership
stirs residents’ interest
in redevelopment site
By tara petersen
Staff Writer

Who owns the snuff mill? Rumors have surfaced recently regarding a change in ownership of the vacant Helme Tobacco Co. site, but tax records on file with Helmetta indicate that Helmetta Lenape, LLC is the owner of the Helme redevelopment site.

But who is Helmetta Lenape?

According to the state Division of Commercial Recording, it is a construction firm called Pizzo & Pizzo Builders and Developers, Bridgewater.

Many residents have recently asked who holds the title to the property, and some wondered if the owner is Matrix Development Group of Cranbury, which was once under contract to buy the mill and has proposed its conversion into 294 non-age-restricted apartments. The Matrix plan has been opposed by many Helmetta residents.

Residents discussed the mill and its future during a July 16 Planning Board meeting, when the board recommended a redevelopment plan for the site to the Borough Council.

Residents at the meeting said the Matrix plan would overburden the schools, raise taxes and cause traffic problems.

One resident alluded to the "snuff mill rumor mill," saying he had heard there was an agreement between the new property owner and Matrix, and that the redevelopment plan was "tailor made" for the Matrix proposal. The plan does not specifically require that future residences at the mill be age-restricted, although some believe it should.

Pizzo & Pizzo is also called the Jason William Barnet Co., and is listed as being located at 1065 U.S. Highway 22 in Bridgewater. The company apparently formed a limited corporation under the name Helmetta Lenape when purchasing the property in the borough.

The developer has built Glen Eyre, single-family homes in Bridgewater.

There is still no evidence to suggest a relationship exists between the owner and the Matrix Development Group. However, Matrix Executive Vice President Steve Patron refused to comment on the suggested relationship, and Pizzo & Pizzo representatives did not return telephone calls seeking comments for this story.

"I think everybody is jumping the gun," Patron said.

He said that, rather than worrying about the specifics of Matrix’s plan or ownership issues, people should wait until the borough issues a Request For Proposals (RFP) and developers submit proposals in accordance with guidelines of the redevelopment plan. That plan will have to be adopted by the Borough Council before an RFP is issued.

Patron declined to comment on whether Matrix has made any changes to its earlier proposal, but said that it is open to agreements that would ensure that the borough is not adversely affected by any additional school children.

"By being a developer, I automatically wear a black hat," Patron said. "No one is going to take what I say at face value anyway."

He also said the company is prepared to make a statement "when the time is appropriate."

Mayor Frank Hauge and Councilman Charles Molino both said that ownership of the property is not a current concern to the borough.

"[The ownership] really doesn’t make any difference to us," Hague said.

"I have no idea what the relationship is, if any, between the owner and Matrix. Ownership as far as I’m concerned doesn’t really matter," Molino said last week.

Molino said that residents have to "believe in the process," and that once proposals come in, they will see that the procedure is a good one.

"I wish the people would realize that there are too many things to look at. We are still at the very beginning stages," Molino said. "I will [personally] never approve, condone or support anything that would negatively impact the school system or the community."

Molino said that the owner has no advantage over any other party.

"[The project] is wide open for any developer," he said.

Borough Attorney Gary Schwartz agreed with Hague and Molino.

"The owner stands in no different position than any other developer," Schwartz said.

He said the owner is permitted to submit a proposal, but that the council "chooses the plan they feel is the best."

Even if the owner has a plan that meets the criteria, the council "has the power to condemn the entire property" if it does not like the owner’s proposal.

Schwartz also said the only obligation the borough has to the owner in that instance is to pay them "fair market value" for the property, which would have to be negotiated.

"There are legal documents [associated with condemnation], but it doesn’t prevent the project from getting started," he said.