September 9, 2015

Removal Permit application. The Public had no questions or comments for Mr. Pelizzoni. Mr. Dwyer noted Section 30-3.2 (a)(8) of the Soil Removal ordinance required grade stakes be placed at the existing elevation points. Section 30-3.2 (a)(6) of the ordinance required the place to which the soil is to be removed, and the kind and quantity of the soil to be removed, be identified. Mr. Molica said the applicant would comply with the requirements as a condition of approval; the applicant would keep logs of to where the soil had been removed. Mr. Pelizzoni concluded his testimony. David Morrow, President and Chief Investment Officer, Wilshire Enterprises, Inc., confirmed he was familiar with the property and the proposed soil removal application. He advised the Board the decision to file the application to remove approximately 1,500 cubic yards of soil was to present to the general public a better viewpoint of what was on the parcel. Wilshire had owned the parcel since 1992; it had been marketed for sale approximately eighteen years; seven different real estate brokers had listed it; the land’s purchase price had been decreased three times. To date not sale had been executed; potential buyers did not want the expense of excavation in relation to the purchase price of the property. Wilshire Enterprises was not a developer; the acquisition of the property was part of a previous divestment with the Trust Company of New Jersey. Mr. Gurland voiced concern regarding the potential loophole mentioned by Mr. Klein. He opined the Board was entitled to review a complete site plan project; he would not vote in favor of the soil removal permit. Mr. Eben said he understood the parcel was acquired as part of a divestment; he opined a site plan application would be preferable but based on the history of the property, some development was better than nothing. Mr. Morrow said that the site was in a great location, but was an odd shape. Mr. Klein opined the applicant should do a little more work regarding curb appeal to make the property more marketable; floor area ratios, parking, generic rectangles, the main components of a commercial site. Mr. Morrow said Wilshire had already incurred costs associated with a potential layout plan; however, the slope of the property, and the geology report put off potential buyers visiting the site. Referring to the Township Planner’s

eady incurred costs associated with a potential layout plan; however, the slope of the property, and the geology report put off potential buyers visiting the site. Referring to the Township Planner’s report, Ms. Keller noted that without additional grading the current proposal was not developable. After the proposed soil removal, the area developed without additional grading or retaining walls was less than 50 feet deep, while the minimum front yard was 30 feet. She questioned if the applicant had discussed a better plan might be to estimate the grading now and complete the project in one shot; Mr. Morrow said that plan had been discussed but the estimated associated costs were prohibitive. Mr. Klein questioned whether the Applicant was comfortable with imposing steeper than 25% slope on the property for future development; Mr. Morrow stated he was aware of the implication; any future development would comply with the ordinance and MLUL.