By Vic Monaco, Managing Editor
HIGHTSTOWN With Councilmen Larry Quattrone and Ryan Rosenberg asking for full input from a divided Economic Development Commission, the Borough Council this week once again delayed action on controversial amendments to an ordinance guiding the redevelopment of the former rug mill.
And in a meeting marked by continued public opposition and some confusing procedural moments for council members and Mayor Bob Patten, the council also chose Monday to once again continue the public hearing on the amendments after one member of the EDC arrived after the hearing had been closed.
Mr. Quattrone’s stated concern — of whether the latest changes to the redevelopment ordinance translate to a “lost vision” for the 7-acre Bank Street property — could be considered a matter of semantics. But the answer he gets from the EDC could result in him casting the swing vote against the amended ordinance.
”I personally do not think we’ve lost the vision but I have to listen. That’s why we have these committees,” Mr. Quattrone said.
The proposed amendments include allowing landowner and potential redeveloper John Wolfington to make a $350,000 payment in lieu of rehabbing the nearby municipal building, and giving the borough the option to maintain ownership of the stub of Mechanic Street behind the municipal building to assure access to the municipal complex.
Mr. Quattrone’s call for EDC input came after Councilman-elect Jeff Bond, the chairman of that commission, testified in favor of the amendments, while fellow EDC member and former chairman Mike Vanderbeck opposed them.
”I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s a good plan,” said Mr. Bond, who will be sworn in in January. “It sets a framework for what we really want to do.”
Mr. Bond added that the maximum number of residential units allowed by the ordinance and planned by Mr. Wolfington, 130, could be reduced by the borough and the retail space could be increased after a site plan is submitted.
But Mr. Vanderbeck, a former borough councilman who owns the Slowdown Cafe, said, “There’s no longer a vision there.”
”We all saw that there would be added value to the (downtown) revitalization efforts … with a mill project that held that vision,” he said. That was a reference to Mr. Wolfington’s first plan about four years ago for only 80 units at the mill and retail space below municipal offices along Main Street, which is no longer being considered.
In addition to having a desire to stretch the business district to the north, Mr. Vanderbeck pointed out that the borough successfully urged the state to get traffic-calming devices downtown.
”That was in preparation for a spectacular development, not an adequate one,” he said.
”With due respect to Jeff, he’d be the first to say the vision has been lost.”
However, when pressed by Councilman Quattrone, Mr. Bond avoided the question. He also pointed out that many members of the public are opposed to the 130-unit density, something the borough allowed in another amendment to the ordinance months ago.
”Is it a change? Of course it is,” Mr. Bond said, soon adding, “I can appreciate the vision of going back to square one. I just don’t know if that’s what’s best for the town.”
Outgoing Councilman Patrick Thompson, a fervent opponent of Mr. Wolfington’s planned changes, said the borough’s negotiations have “eroded” earlier benefits of the project and the rug mill owner has “taken advantage of our enthusiasm” to improve the borough.
”This is our only opportunity to make Hightstown a better place,” he said.
The mill tract and the former Minute Maid property on the outskirts of town are the only significant developable piece of land in the borough.
Dan Buriak, who has worked to secure grant funding for the nearby Stockton Street Historic District, also voiced strong opposition.
”We’re playing with the core of Hightstown,” he said. “This is the village. Now you’re playing with the village and improvements to the Historic District.”
Mr. Buriak also said he was shocked that neither Mr. Wolfington nor any of his representatives attended the hearing.
”I find it ironic that we, as a community, are rushing back from New York from our jobs and our lives to try to talk about something so important to us, and the developer stands to make all this money and he’s not here,” he said. “I don’t understand that and I hope it factors into all of your decisions. It’s a slap in the face.”
Government critic Gene Sarafin said Mr. Wolfington’s current plan, mostly comprised of condominiums, ignores the single-family-home nature of the borough.
”We have a sense of community because we know our neighbors,” he said. “I think you’re creating something where nobody knows their neighbors.”
Broad Street resident Frank Rivera said Mr. Wolfington has painted the borough into a corner, with his constant changes.
”There was a vision,” he said. “All I smell is paint now.”
And Councilwoman Constance Harinxma agreed.
”I feel strongly that the vision they presented is gone,” she said.
Mr. Vanderbeck urged the council to poll the EDC, saying “I would hazard a guess you’d get a strong vote (in opposition to the changes).”
And Councilman Ryan Rosenberg, who is the liaison to the EDC, heartily agreed with that suggestion.
”I asked for a white paper from the EDC in June,” he said, while adding that he never received it. “Now is the time to get an opinion.”
On the other side of the aisle supporting the amendments were Mayor Patten, Councilman Dave Schneider and Mike Theokas, the owner of Theo’s Lakeside Tavern who recently ran unsuccessfully for a council seat.
The mayor repeated his belief that some of the public’s comments are “erroneous.”
”No one can say there would be a negative impact without a (site) plan (having been submitted),” he said.
Mr. Schneider, on the other hand, assured the 30 or so people in attendance, that he was not being “dismissive of anyone.” He added his concern that the number of units could rise if the borough doesn’t move ahead now.
Mr. Theokas said the amended ordinance is “not the Magna Carta, where it’s going to change the entire scope of the borough for thousands of years to come.”
After one failed attempt, Mr. Quattrone’s request to approve the postponement was OK’d on a 5-1 vote, with Councilman Thompson dissenting.
Council President Walter Sikorski, a proponent of the changes, agreed to postpone the issue, citing the call for EDC input and the continued opposition from residents, 100 of whom previously signed a petition to voice their displeasure.
Rich Almquist, vice president of development for Wolfington Companies, said Thursday that he had been unable to reach Mr. Wolfington to see if he wanted to respond to the criticism.
”It’s been a public ongoing dialogue between council, the Planning Board and members of the public and borough professionals and we have been happy to be a part of that dialogue and look forward to working with the same bodies in the future for a positive project,” he added.
Meanwhile Monday night Mayor Patten urged for a continuation of the hearing after Borough Attorney Fred Raffetto said the council could not accept testimony from a late-arriving Gene O’Connor, a member of the EDC. Mr. Raffetto said the hearing had been closed and the borough would have to advertise to reopen it. Despite questioning the need for a hearing continuance, Councilmen Sikorski and Rosenberg were part of a unanimous vote to continue the hearing on Dec. 17.
Mr. Vanderbeck later said he expects testimony from the EDC at that time.
Mr. O’Conner gave a big hint of his future testimony to a Herald reporter.
”Obviously the vision isn’t there,” he said.

