Work on nearby borough building remains redevelopment requirement
By: Matt Chiappardi
HIGHTSTOWN The Planning Board this week rejected a request from the Borough Council to drop a requirement that the redevelopment of the rug mill property on Bank Street include the refurbishing or rebuilding of the nearby municipal building.
With an 8-1 vote, the board on Monday sent the redevelopment ordinance back to the council as is, with the immediate future of the long-stalled development project in its hands.
Board member Chris Emigholz cast the only dissenting vote, while board member and nearby property owner Richard Pratt did not vote and did not participate in the discussion.
At issue is the 7-acre rug mill property owned by developer John Wolfington. The most recent public plans from Mr. Wolfington have included retail space on the first floor of a refurbished municipal building with government offices above. However, Mr. Wolfington has offered the borough money $350,000 according to borough officials in exchange for dropping that requirement.
In May, after losing a state grant, also for $350,000, the council asked the Planning Board to review the redevelopment ordinance again, removing the municipal building requirement. It was a move suggested by Councilman Dave Schneider in the hope that it would bring the borough one step closer to entering into a developer’s agreement with Mr. Wolfington.
But that change was not going to occur Monday.
Board member Jim Jurgens voiced his annoyance with the process and asked, "At what point is this going to end?"
"I’m beginning to feel we’re going to retrofit something into a specific developer … we keep getting redevelopment plans bounced back to us like a rubber ball."
The board previously was asked and agreed last spring to recommend lifting the maximum number of residential units at the site from 80 to 130 after Mr. Wolfington said the lower number could not render him a profit.
Borough Council President and Planning Board member Walter Sikorski hesitated a moment before casting his vote. Mr. Sikorski said Tuesday that he found the events of the meeting somewhat surprising.
"It seems like there was a change in climate," he said referring to the fact that he previously perceived the board as having been divided on the issue of the municipal building.
Mr. Sikorski, who had voted to send the ordinance back to the planners, said he walked into the meeting leaning toward dropping the borough component of the ordinance. But after hearing from the other board members and from the residents in attendance, he changed his mind.
Mayor Bob Patten who also sits on the board and has urged for compromise with the developer agreed. He said the ordinance, "as it is now is the best thing for the borough." He said he wants "more tangible reasons" why Mr. Wolfington might not be able to meet the ordinance’s requirements.
Before the vote, the borough’s housing consultant, Tamara Lee, recommended the ordinance be left alone.
"This board does not need to get bogged down in a negotiation," she said, "That’s council’s issue."
"Stick to your vision," she added.
Board member Nancy Walker Laudenberger said she believes that the board "did the best thing for the borough by far" by standing ground on the ordinance.
Mr. Emigholz disagreed.
"Do we want to make a perfect vision of what we might want at that site get in the way of what’s good for the borough?" he asked the rest of the board. Mr. Emigholtz cited an article from New Jersey Monthly magazine listing their 16 best downtowns in New Jersey. In his opinion, getting the mill developed as quickly as possible would bring Hightstown a step closer to being on that list.
"We need to bring in well-to-do single people," he said, "How do we do thatcondos!"
Mr. Wolfington’s latest public plan included 122 condominiums and eight townhouses. But he subsequently said he would need to raise the overall number to 141 in order to make money.
Mr. Emigholtz’s point was refuted by Ms. Laudenberger who said, "I can’t imagine why someone would buy a condo with nothing there to make it attractive," referring to the potential development of a condominium complex at the mill site without any alterations to the borough hall.
Mr. Schneider seemed perplexed by the board’s decision. Speaking during the public comment portion, Mr. Schneider asserted that the borough already knows that Mr. Wolfington won’t redevelop the site with the refurbishment requirement, making the board’s action meaningless. He previously said dropping the requirement was the only real way to get Mr. Wolfington to adhere to the 130-unit limit.
After the meeting, Mr. Schneider repeated that his opposition to the ordinance as it currently reads is largely due to traffic and parking issues and the possible difficulties a retail complex at borough hall might cause the borough’s emergency vehicles.
"This is a decent use of the property," he said, referring to potential development without the municipal hall alternations, "and having it here sitting vacant is not doing anything for property values."
Richard Almquist, who works for Mr. Wolfington, said his company is "happy to continue discussions with the borough." He declined to comment any further.
Several residents speaking at the meeting supported having additional retail space along Mercer Street, in the first floor of the borough building. Slowdown Café owner Mike Vanderbeck, a member of the Economic Development Committee, said he has a long-term vision for Hightstown and hopes that the board feels the same way.
"I’d love to retire here," he said, "and I’d love to live in a place that is totally upscale."
"We need to look not at only the immediate benefit, but the long-term benefit," added.
Fellow EDC member Jeff Bond, a Borough Council candidate, said more retail space in the borough’s downtown area can only be a good thing.
"I must be an idiot," he said facetiously, "because I’m building retail and office space downtown."
Stockton Street resident Amanda Porter, wife of Mr. Pratt, agreed.
"There has to be options, choices, something to drive (high-income people) here," she said.
Mr. Sikorski said the Borough Council will likely take action on the issue at its next meeting, which is scheduled for July 10.