Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Environmental Review topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Objectors press environmental, riparian and stormwater concerns in contested Greenwich major site plan
Summary
Objector experts told the board that the Tinsley site plan record is incomplete: the environmental impact outline omits threatened species and historic‑resource analyses; DEP and municipal floodplain/stormwater submissions differ; and key soil testing is absent from the footprints of critical basins near the Musconetcong River.
Objectors opposed to the Tinsley (Greenwich Township, NJ LLC) site plan presented a series of expert critiques at the Land Use Board hearing, arguing that the municipal record lacks essential environmental and engineering information needed for an informed decision.
Rob Simon, representing the objector group, introduced Mary Pace Coleman, P.E., who testified as an engineering expert on riparian and stormwater matters. Coleman told the board the applicant’s environmental impact outline (submitted September 2024) is deficient: it does not adequately identify or analyze threatened and endangered wildlife, nor does it evaluate visual, grading, lighting or traffic effects on mapped historic resources such as the Peter Smith Farm. She said a New Jersey natural‑heritage database search and a December 4, 2025 National Park Service letter indicate the presence of state‑ and federally‑listed resources that were not addressed in the outline.
On riparian mapping and stream‑corridor setbacks, Coleman said the applicant’s top‑of‑bank line appears to be drawn on an adjacent parcel (Block 30, Lot 8) and that the applicant has not submitted DEP verification (a freshwater wetlands Letter of Interpretation or flood hazard area verification) for that parcel. She warned that an inaccurate top‑of‑bank line changes the extent of the municipal 250‑foot stream corridor (chapter 16 §4.16) and quantified the applicant’s reported disturbance in the 300‑foot riparian buffer as roughly 3.989 acres — noting that correcting the bank line to the municipal 250‑foot standard would reduce but not eliminate substantial impacts.
Coleman also produced a georeferenced exhibit (SPA‑5) mapping soil test pits and borings relative to proposed stormwater basins. She said Basin B‑8 (the oval basin near Route 173 that lies within the flood hazard area and municipal stream corridor) lacks any soil testing within its footprint, leaving the board without necessary geotechnical information about subsurface conditions at the location of deep excavation.
On floodplain and stormwater design, Coleman said DEP has a stormwater report submitted 06/12/2026 that differs from the municipal file (March report); she said the applicant’s latest DEP filing contains significant outlet‑control modifications for Basin B‑8 and other engineering changes that the municipal engineer has not reviewed. She also raised dam‑safety concerns about Basin B‑5, which is retained and impounds more than five feet of water; under NJ standards that triggers enhanced municipal review for spillway/outlet designs and the 100‑year plus 50% design storm safety factor.
Board members and counsel debated admissibility and timing of objector exhibits; after argument the chair admitted SPA‑1 through SPA‑4 into evidence and SPA‑5 for identification, with additional testimony supporting SPA‑5’s preparation methodology. The board scheduled continuances and asked parties to provide outstanding materials, noting the applicant has previously extended the decision deadline to September 30 and setting further hearing dates for August and September to continue expert testimony and municipal technical review.
The board did not take a final vote on the contested application at this session; objector testimony focused the record on DEP vs. municipal submissions, riparian setbacks, floodplain compliance, and the adequacy and placement of soil testing in relation to proposed stormwater facilities.
