Planner Says Tinsley Light‑manufacturing Project Fits Greenwich master plan; Neighbors and Experts Push for Tenant Limits and More Studies

GREENWICH TWP., N.J. — The Greenwich Township Land Use Board continued a public hearing on an application from Tinsley Greenwich Township NJ LLC after hearing testimony from the applicant's professional planner and hours of questions from attorneys, board members and residents.

Applicant counsel Michael Le Perry introduced planner Christina/Christine Capone of the Capone Consulting Group, who testified that the proposed light‑manufacturing use is permitted in the ROM zone and that the project seeks eight variances and one waiver. "This application is absolutely appropriately before the board as a light manufacturing use," Capone told the board, citing a 2023 ordinance and passages of the township master plan she said support expansion of ROM‑type uses.

Capone described variances for disturbance and setback buffers (100‑ft transition buffer and a 250‑ft stream corridor buffer), a front‑yard parking arrangement that places about 194 spaces closer to residences, a monument sign in the buffer area, higher than permitted average site lighting, and a design waiver to allow a 45‑ft driveway where the code caps driveway width at 35 ft. She said the applicant has agreed to landscaping, dark‑sky lighting fixtures, shields and post‑installation light tests as mitigation, and to return to the board with tenant‑specific statements of operations and floor plans once tenants are identified.

Objectors focused on operations that are not yet known. "We don't have an end user," Capone said under cross‑examination, acknowledging the applicant has not identified tenants, employee counts or shifts and has promised tenant review in a future noticed hearing. Counsel for the Skylands Preservation Alliance and other objectors pressed that without a defined operator the board cannot evaluate truck activity, noise impacts, or how many loading docks and trailer stalls would be actively used.

Traffic and parking concerns were raised by the objectors' traffic expert, Lee Klein, who reviewed industry parking‑generation data for buildings of this size and testified that demand for certain light‑industrial or manufacturing uses can be much higher than the site plan's provided parking. "To me, there's not enough parking in this proposed site plan to be able to accommodate manufacturing or general light industrial," Klein said, noting 85th‑percentile parking figures that, depending on the land‑use category, can range into the high hundreds.

Residents and other public commenters expressed concerns about large trucks, diesel noise on a 7% uphill grade in the proposed truck route, the absence of an acoustical study, potential impacts to the Muskanet River corridor and nearby historic structures, and the effectiveness of proposed mitigation. Several asked whether the board could and should restrict the size or number of trucks or require deed restrictions to prevent future conversion to non‑permitted uses. Board and counsel discussed the option of recording deed restrictions and whether tenant review conditions could be enforced; attorneys noted that deed restrictions run with the land but can be lifted if local ordinances change.

The applicant and its planners said that certain technical questions (turning radii, stormwater, geology, acoustics) are the subject of other expert witnesses who were expected but not present. Objectors stated their civil, geology and planning experts were likewise not available at this session.

The board set a firm continuance to July 9 at 7:00 p.m. and directed objectors' experts to appear then or be precluded from testifying later. The board's chair indicated public comment on the item is likely to be scheduled at a later meeting after the outstanding expert testimony is presented.