Developer wants more units again.
By: Vic Monaco
HIGHTSTOWN The long-expected sale of the former rug mill property on Bank Street, eyed for a major redevelopment project, will be finalized by Monday, according to one of its local owners and the developer making the purchase.
And the developer who was cast aside by the borough last fall when he drastically increased the number of residential units plans to once again seek between 120 and 130.
"We’re closing Monday," developer John Wolfington said late Thursday afternoon while confirming a sales price of "over $3 million."
"The next step," he said, "is to try to work with the borough to come up with a reasonable plan and get this plan moving."
And if Mr. Wolfington gets his way, the number of units on the 7-acre tract will rise dramatically from his most recent plan for 98 units.
"I think we’ve done our research and we’ve paid money to have the borough do its research. The 122 mark is where we want to be. One hundred twenty, 122," he said. "I’m not saying that’s the end-all number. We’re going to try to work it out so it’s reasonable for me and the borough.
"We need to work through it and get it done quickly. The land has been under agreement since 2003."
Two firms have expressed interest in redeveloping the property for mixed uses, primarily condominiums. Both have been criticized for their planned density, which is significantly higher than the 80-unit limit imposed by the borough’s redevelopment ordinance.
After working with Mr. Wolfington’s Greystone Mill firm of Paoli, Pa., for about two years, the Borough Council last week heard from Dranoff Properties of Philadelphia, which has a 143-unit proposal. At the end of that firm’s presentation, the council sent the redevelopment ordinance back to the Planning Board for amendments, which presumably could allow for increased density.
Greystone’s latest plan, presented by partner Satish Mehta, stood at 98 units but Mr. Wolfington recently said he was planning to increase that number.
Confirmation of that on Thursday did not surprise either Mayor Bob Patten, who has pushed for the 98-unit plan, nor Councilman Patrick Thompson, who initially said he wanted a lower number but was impressed with Dranoff’s denser plan, which also included the renovation of the municipal building.
"I’m not surprised since Dranoff proposed 143 and it seemed like that was well-received by council," said Mayor Patten. "I’ll look at both of them and, who knows, there might be someone else out there when we redo our redevelopment plan, if the Planning Board chooses to do that. Who knows where we’ll be."
"I’m not surprised on either front," said Councilman Thompson. "They made it clear they were on a path to purchase the building and he also made it clear that he was looking for more units. This reinforces the fact that we now have two developers interested in developing the site, neither of whom conforms to our redevelopment plan. I’m glad we didn’t throw the second plan in the garbage, as the mayor suggested."
Mr. Thompson also said there should be no regrets in not having approved the 98-unit plan.
"We control this discussion," he said. "The fact that they own the site doesn’t change anything relative to the fact that we have not yet named a redeveloper and that, according to the redevelopment plan, we have the ability, regardless of who owns it, to choose the redevelopment plan we feel is more appropriate for Hightstown in the short and long term."
"There are a lot of other aspects of this development that are important," he said in a reference to the number of units.
It was unclear Thursday if Mr. Wolfington’s 122 figure includes eight townhouses that have been included in both plans.
The property is one of only two significant developable parcels in the borough, the other being the closed Minute Maid plant.
In addition to the rug mill, the property was home to the manufacture of light bulbs. Both operations may have contributed to the need for an environmental cleanup that has been estimated to cost $1 million.
On Thursday, Mr. Wolfington confirmed that estimated cost.
Early in the week, Gene Pascucci, one of two owners of the land, said the finalized sale had been delayed because of "some environmental issue." Later, he characterized the issue as a "pretty simple thing," that only prevents some residential development in certain areas of the tract but allows parking or commercial development in those spots. And he said he was confident of a sales closing by Monday, when his deal with Wolfington is set to expire.
Mr. Pascucci expressed frustration with the borough for not forging a deal with Mr. Wolfington.
"If they want something to happen, they have to give in, too," he said. "You can’t wave a wand and hope for it to evolve into what you want it to be."
He also said, "The borough’s trying to sell something I own to someone else."
That is very close to the argument that Councilman Walt Sikorski and Mayor Patten have made. A representative of Dranoff said last week that his firm is well aware of the pending sale and that hasn’t squelched its interest. Dranoff officials could not be reached this week.
Mr. Wolfington said recently that his firm had spent more than $1 million on the property. That money is composed of fees for professionals of the firm and the borough along with local taxes and option payments made to the local owners.
Mr. Pascucci has owned the property for about a decade. The co-owner, Al Colligan, could not be reached for comment.
Portions of the property are being rented, including space for Janet’s Weddings. On Monday, as a groundhog scurried about outside among piles of rusted pipes, the 15-foot-high windows of the business were piled to the top inside with all kinds of items including boxes, bags, baskets and a large fan.
Contacted out of town, Borough Fire Chief John Archer acknowledged the condition of the rented space could pose safety risks.
"It was a total mess last time I was back there," he said. "I was waiting to see what would happen with the sale this week."
Chief Archer said he would be getting the borough’s fire official out to do another inspection.
"The renters have to address it. It’s a problem for certain," the chief said.
A representative for Janet’s Weddings could not be reached for comment.