By: Vic Monaco
A lawsuit aimed at overturning the Hightstown Planning Board’s approval of two subdivisions in the Stockton Street Historic District sought by board member Richard Pratt has been dropped.
The suit was filed last summer by former borough councilman and historic preservationist Dan Buriak, who accused Mr. Pratt of having a conflict of interest.
He stated in the lawsuit that while Mr. Pratt did not vote on the applications for 202 and 214 Stockton St., he testified twice on behalf of his company, P3 Associates. That, he claimed, was "inconsistent with the dictates of the Borough of Hightstown Master Plan" and violated the state’s Local Government Ethics Law and a borough ordinance that prohibits members of the Planning Board from acting "on any matter in which he has, either directly or indirectly any personal or financial interest."
Mercer County State Superior Court Judge Linda Feinberg said last week that Mr. Pratt "crossed the line" by providing testimony to the board that could be construed as coming from an expert when he cited a re-examination report of the local Master Plan, drafted by fellow board members, to support approval of the application.
"Not that I knowingly stepped over the line," Mr. Pratt, an architect, said this week. "It was because of my background in presenting expert testimony for other clients that it may have been misconstrued by the Planning Board. They might give my speech more weight than someone they don’t know."
"That was just a tentative opinion," board attorney Gary Rosensweig said of the judge’s comment.
The judge ultimately offered to hear the case herself after suggesting that perhaps the Borough Council do so, according to both sides.
But Mr. Buriak confirmed this week in a long, sarcastic e-mail that he had decided last week to stop fighting "the new direction of Hightstown."
"The vision of the town’s Master Plan is no longer valid as it seems that those who are in charge are ‘smarter.’ Their new ‘wisdom’ has determined that the Historic District and surrounding neighborhood can be improved by carving up the Victorian’s yards and building new houses, despite the recent Historic Preservation Commission survey that indicates Historic District residents oppose subdividing the lots, two to one," he wrote.
"And while there may be the potential of a short-term success in the legal system to maintain the Master Plan’s vision to protect the town’s historic assets, this process has elucidated that the new ‘smarter’ direction will eventually prevail as our local Planning Board will do whatever it takes and make whatever changes necessary to the Master Plan to assure the most development in every corner of the borough."
Mr. Buriak had also claimed a conflict of interest and violation of the state Ethics Law on the part of Mayor Bob Patten, who voted to approve the subdivisions as a member of the Planning Board. That conflict arose, he claimed, because Mr. Pratt in 2002 "led and financed a movement referred to as ‘Democrats for Patten,’ the purpose of which was to assist in the election of current Mayor Patten."
Mr. Pratt this week stood by his previous comment that the claims in the lawsuit were "unfounded." He had pointed out that both planned single-family houses would face away from Stockton Street, which was listed in 2005 on both the state and national Registers of Historic Places.
As for his role with Democrats for Patten, he said he was one of three people in charge and that had no relevance.
Mr. Patten said this week, "I never had a conflict. … Even if he didn’t drop the suit, it would have turned out the same way."
Mr. Buriak had claimed that the Planning Board "acted in an arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable manner" when granting relief variances for both applications despite the Master Plan’s direction to protect existing historic sites, preserve the open space and to halt the minor subdivisions and subsequent addition of new single-family houses.
Mr. Pratt said he will move ahead with his plans.
In the future, Mr. Rosensweig told the Planning Board on Monday night, any board member who testifies before the board on his own behalf should give "vanilla-type" testimony comprising simply a description of the plan.

