By Matt Chiappardi, Staff Writer
HIGHTSTOWN—The borough’s Economic Development Committee, whose opinion was key to last year’s rejection of an amended ordinance for the redevelopment of the rug mill property, decided this week not to react to the recent reintroduction of the same ordinance unless asked by the Borough Council.
But after its meeting Wednesday, at least one committee member said his personal opinion has not wavered since the advisory board gave its written recommendation late last year.
Mike Vanderbeck, a former borough councilman, said the only thing he would propose changing about the committee’s advice is “the date on the top of the letter.”
The resurrected ordinance slated for a public hearing Monday night would allow property owner John Wolfington to make a payment in lieu of rehabbing the nearby municipal building or creating new office space for the borough. Borough officials have previously said that payment would be about $350,000.
In December, the committee recommended defeat of the ordinance, indicating the borough was making too many concessions to the property owner and the ordinance represented a “lost vision” as it relates to downtown revitalization.
Mr. Vanderbeck, at the time, criticized borough leaders for the way they had negotiated the redevelopment deal with Mr. Wolfington, saying he believed the developer never got the impression the council would say no to him.
The Borough Council eventually defeated that ordinance 4-2, as Councilman Larry Quattrone said the EDC recommendation played a large part in his swing vote.
This past month, the council reintroduced it. One notable difference from December is the seating of Councilman Jeff Bond. The former EDC member has voiced favor for the ordinance but told the Herald last year that he would not support the same local law. Nonetheless, he voted to reintroduce it.
In addition, Councilman Quattrone has said he may approve it this time around.
EDC Committee Chairman Bill Gillmore declined to comment Wednesday until he sees Mr. Wolfington’s reaction to the reintroduced ordinance.
Mr. Wolfington in January sued the borough in an effort to overturn the current ordinance and recoup $250,000 in fees for local planning and review. His representative said as early as July that Mr. Wolfington has yet a new plan for the 7-acre Bank Street property. But its presentation has been delayed.
As for the committee’s lack of official comment without council inquiry, Mr. Gillmore said, “We serve at the pleasure of the council. Our role is to be a resource for them.”
He added that members are free to present their personal opinions at the scheduled public hearing. Committee member Mike Wiley indicated he’s going to do exactly that.
Mr. Wiley declined to comment on the ordinance Thursday in order to “keep consistency” with the committee, he said. He added, however, that he plans to reveal his views Monday.
Eugene O’Connor was a bit more forthcoming Thursday, when he said he is “more interested in the results than process at this point.”
”This is critically important to the borough. It’s been going on for five years,” he said in reference to the four-plus years of negotiation between the borough and Mr. Wolfington. “So long as it’s developed as a mixed-use project that maintains the original building, it’s most important that it gets done.”
Mr. O’Connor later acknowledged that his statements might “override (his) earlier comments.” In December, he clearly opposed the redevelopment ordinance, saying “the borough has lost site of the vision and gotten bogged down in details.”
Mayor and EDC ex-officio member Bob Patten and Mike Theokas, newly appointed by the mayor to the EDC, voiced their continued support of the ordinance this week.
The borough previously amended the redevelopment ordinance, lifting the number of allowable residential units on the site from 80 to 130, in line with Mr. Wolfington’s latest public plan.

