|
PINE SNAKE HAS SNAGGED SUPER-WAL-MART APPLICATION
DEVELOPER NOW MOUNTING PR CAMPAIGN TO GET APPLICATION MOVED THROUGH STATE
By Bill McLaughlin
 | | Photo By Eric San Juan The prospective developers of a Wal-Mart Superstore straddling the border of Toms River and Manchester are asking residents to tell state officials they want their Wal-Mart. |
|
A tiny Pine snake threw a monkey wrench into plans for a 200,000-squarefoot Wal-Mart superstore earlier this year when a state agency prevented construction for environmental issues.
The retail giant planned to build on a 25-acre site straddling two townships, which required two sets of hearings, testimony and decisions.
In the end, the applicants answered all the questioned posed during 16 hearings in Manchester and another eight in Toms River, held over a one-year period ending in September 2005. Both towns' planning board approved the applications with split decisions.
The applicant had to wait for professional reviews by state transportation and environmental professionals. When months later, the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) turned down the project based on the discovery of a single snake, the applicant was stymied.
Now, the landowners - Jaylin Properties LLC - are beginning to mount a public relations counterattack. A sign went up recently on the Route 37 property frontage asking for the public's help in getting the DEP decision overturned.
It reads: "Call Gov. Jon Corzine at (609) 292-6000 and tell him "People Have Rights, too," concluding with a plea: "We want our Wal-Mart Superstore."
There is now a display in the foyer of the existing Wal-Mart further east on Route 37, displaying a mockup of the proposed superstore and asking Wal-Mart shoppers to register their dismay at not being permitted a chance to shop at the state-of-the art superstore.
Attorney Robert Shea led the fight for the Jaylin application. He said last Friday that the applicants plan to hold a press conference in the coming weeks outlining their objections to the state environmental department's refusal.
"The DEP hasn't changed its position and we feel our side of the story needs to be told," Shea said.
The DEP stance is not without precedent in New Jersey, especially where large construction projects are planned on what previously had been unspoiled land. This application seemed headed for approval after both Manchester and Toms River planning boards voted in favor of the project.
A long, drawn-out verbal war centered on environmental issues had Thomas Uzzo, a Union County environmental engineer working for Jaylin, testifying on three different dates in Manchester alone.
An attorney for Perlmart Inc., which owns and operates Shop-Rite supermarkets, commissioned a study of the site which later became the basis for DEP review of the wild life issues.
At a May 2005 session, Uzzo was asked about a site assessment he did known as a geotechnical evaluation of the subsoil. There were concerns from environmentalists that the site was contaminated by underground seepage from a Getty service station on the Route 37 portion of the site.
Uzzo said there was no indication of water pollution on the tract, citing an on-going DEP remediation of the problem. Uzzo said he dug 78 borings and 61 test holes and found the soil relatively unspoiled.
At no time during the long trial was the question of Pine snake habitat, or that of any other endangered species, discussed at length.
Ron Gasiorowki, who represents Perlmart Inc., told the planning board in Manchester that he would produce an environmental witness at a June 2005 meeting, but later demurred.
Uzzo said the question of endangered plants and animals was resolved with an on-site evaluation that consisted of a walkthrough and visual readings. Hand-held instruments and an odiferous screening - a smell test, if you will - were part of the impact study.
The hearings were marked by an overabundance of public input, testimonials often repetitious and focused on things the boards could not use to factor in a decision. The boards could not legally factor in the economic impact the Wal-Mart would have on existing stores, for instance.
Union workers employed by area supermarkets and big-box stores attended every meeting, objecting to the allegedly predatory hiring practices that have made Wal-Mart so successful. Union workers are banned in all stores except those ironically in China, which recently negotiated with the Arkansas corporation for a special dispensation.
However, a number of Wal-Mart employees attended every meeting, many in the company's blue uniforms, and expressed nothing but positive feelings about the employer.
| 
)