By Vic Monaco, Managing Editor
HIGHTSTOWN Despite continued public opposition to the latest proposed plan for guiding redevelopment of the former rug mill, “cordial” would have been the best word to describe testimony at a public hearing this week.
That was until resident J.P. Gibbons came to the end of his comments Monday night and suddenly threatened Mayor Bob Patten with a recall movement.
“Now you’re getting off the subject of the ordinance and any threats are not really appreciated or needed according to Robert’s Rules of Order,” said the mayor. “You can continue on, but I just want to warn you on that, that you’re out of order right now.”
“Time’s up, mayor. You’ve got yourself about four months,” replied the South Main Street resident in a reference to a recall deadline. “And I will fund the recall.”
On Tuesday, Mr. Gibbons said he has had problems with the way Mayor Patten has handled several issues, including a recent meeting with state turnpike representatives about their widening plan, to which the mayor excluded council members. But he said the mayor’s handling of the long-delayed mill redevelopment — which includes him twice breaking a council tie to move ordinance amendments ahead — is the proverbial “straw that broke the camel’s back.”
He also said he finds fault with the mayor serving on the Planning Board and the rug mill committee, and then negotiating with the potential developer and bringing his own ideas back to the planners and council.
“I’m concerned that he is overstepping the boundaries of the form of government we have in Hightstown. It is a government by council,” he said.
And he added, “If you disagree with the man, he treats you as though you don’t have a brain. He is contemptuous and that is my major problem with him.”
Mr. Gibbons, who has criticized the mayor in the past and says he has no political aspirations, said he has talked to other residents and a lawyer about him spearheading a recall movement.
“I’m not the only person he’s offended,” he said of the mayor. “If you watch him during the public periods of meetings, he doesn’t even listen.”
Mr. Gibbons said he will fund a movement to allow residents to decide if the mayor should be recalled if the mayor doesn’t demonstrate by mid February “more flexibility and more understanding of borough residents, and if he continues to act as though he is the only power in the borough.”
He said he would need about 700 signatures on a petition, and the effort would likely cost him about $10,000, including the cost of an attorney.
Mayor Patten said Wednesday that Mr. Gibbons is “entitled to his opinion, and the process is open to whomever wants to exercise it.
“It seems to me that he is frustrated by the length of time it has taken to get the mill project plan started, and we all are too. But the council and I are working very hard with a due-diligence process to get what is reasonable and best for Hightstown.”
The borough has been negotiating with developer and rug mill owner John Wolfington for more than four years. And his latest plan, for 130 units on the 7-acre Bank Street site, prompted a petition last month signed by 100 opposing residents.
Before swerving to his recall comments and handing out printed sheets with laws related to recalls, Mr. Gibbons’ major complaint with the proposed redevelopment ordinance is that it contains too many of the details that should, instead, be part of an agreement with Wolfington. That includes, he said, a controversial payment-in-lieu-of taxes program that would allow the borough to take 95 percent of PILOT payments rather than sharing taxes with the county and regional school district.
After the meeting, Steve Misiura, chairman of the Planning Board, which gets its say on ordinance amendments Monday, said Mr. Gibbons has a point when it comes to putting too much detail in the local law.
Resident Gene Sarafin who screamed at the mayor Monday night and said he would join in Mr. Gibbons’ recall movement told the council that keeping the mill building is “asinine.” He said it would make more sense to build a two-level garage with development above it. He also said the current plan ignores “societal needs” such as a day-care facility.
Resident Chris Moraitis, who last month presented the borough with the petition, said 130 units is “way too dense” and would create traffic “chaos” in the area.
Mr. Gibbons suggested the borough let Mr. Wolfington keep $350,000 earmarked for upgrading the nearby municipal building so he could reduce his costs and lower the number of units.
One of the proposed amendments allows for that payment in lieu of a previous requirement that the developer rehabilitate the municipal building or build a new one.
Mr. Moraitis also said the borough should not lock itself into having its required shared of affordable housing units, believed to be 14, at the mill site because that, too, drives up the total number of units
Citing “misconceptions,” Mayor Patten said he has asked Mr. Wolfington to present the public with a conceptual plan of the condominiums, which would make up the bulk of the project. He said the developer has agreed to work on that.
The council hearing on amendments to the redevelopment ordinance is scheduled to resume Dec. 3, after the Planning Board reviews them Monday and makes recommendations.
The amendments also would allow the borough to maintain ownership of a portion of nearby Mechanic Street, to ensure emergency vehicle access something representatives of Mr. Wolfington have said could be a deal-breaker.
The amendments also call for the borough’s shared use of a parking lot at a small retail site Mr. Wolfington would build on the east side of Bank Street, across from the mill, and requires that all 20,000 square feet of that two-floor building be comprised of leasable space.
