06/06/2026
Stop the insanity!
Anyone who cares……
please take the time!
We Love You!
Thank you!!!
Friends, we need your help! Please read the draft email below and consider sending to NJ DEP. An active warehouse proposal is targeting the 200-year old historic Peter Smith farm in Greenwich Township which lies within the lower Musconetcong Valley (see photo). This unnecessary development would change the rural character of the local landscape and bears countless risks for Bloomsbury and surrounding communities, some are outlined in the draft email below. The developer is seeking variances to build within the riparian buffer, a mere 200 feet from our wild and scenic river. Disturbing this sensitive habitat would cause irreparable environmental damage and will absolutely invite additional industrial development in surrounding areas. Perhaps that means your backyard! The request is simple but critical. We ask that you review the letter, edit if desired, type or sign your name (contact info optional), and email to Ms. Danielle Ashmen ([email protected]) and Ms. Lauren Waer ([email protected]) listed in the header of the email below. Special shout outs to Skylands Preservation Alliance and Bloomsbury Coalition Against Warehouse Sprawl for their ongoing work to keep the Musconetcong Valley beautiful!
Thank you everyone.
June 3, 2026
Via Electronic Mail
Attn: Ms. Danielle Ashmen ([email protected]) and Ms. Lauren Waer ([email protected]) New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Division of Land Resource Protection P.O. Box 420, Code 501-02A Trenton, NJ 08625-0420
Re: NJDEP Flood Hazard Area Verification and Individual Permit Application for Block 31, Lot 12, 717 New Jersey State Highway Route 173, Township of Greenwich, Warren County, New Jersey
Applicant: Rocco Paternostro Proposed Light Manufacturing Building, The Tinsley, Greenwich Township NJ LLC Activity Number: 2107-10-0001.1 LUP260001
Dear Ms. Ashmen and Ms. Waer,
I am writing to express concern about the proposed development and Individual Permit application on the property referenced above. This lot is currently actively farmed and has been in agricultural production for at least 200 years as part of the historic Peter Smith Farm. This prime farmland is located directly across from the designated Category One Musconetcong River, a National Wild and Scenic River that is federally protected by Act of Congress PL 109-452. As part of the river corridor, the location is a haven for migratory birds. The DEP has identified several endangered or threatened species in the area, including wood thrush and bobcat on the referenced property. The N.J.A.C. 7:13-11.6 does not allow activity in the Flood Hazard Area that could affect critically important habitat for threatened or endangered species.
To meet DEP stormwater regulations, the applicant is inflating the existing runoff rate by classifying the farm fields as barren land instead of cropland, and by re-classifying the soils onsite from well-drained to poorly-drained. By overestimating the amount of run-off currently flowing from the farm fields, the applicant is suggesting the extra water from their proposed impervious coverage would flow at a lower rate in an attempt by the applicant to fulfill N.J.A.C. 7:8-5.6(b)3 .
Misclassifying a 200-year-old farm as “Barren Land” (which the NRCS TR-55 manual defines as having less than 5% vegetative cover, similar to a quarry or sand dune) is a technical inaccuracy and extremely concerning. Additionally, the applicant suggests the existing farm field run-off amounts to almost 100 cubic feet per second during a significant storm event. Since the existing culvert pipes that route stormwater runoff under the highway are completely buried in silt, such proposed existing run-off is not accurate and does not reflect reality. This area already has a history of flooding, and the proposed Tinsley development risks exacerbating flooding and threatens the historic residences along the river.
The applicant has not identified regulated waters, wetlands, or accurate top-of-bank elevations though a formal delineation process. For decades, surface waters have been observed further north and closer to Route 173 than depicted on the applicant’s survey and riparian zone site plans. The above observations, alongside the misclassification of the existing soils and existing flooding conditions, could be detrimental to the area. Formal determination of top of bank and the extent of regulated waters are critical for the location of the riparian buffer applicable to this application.
Because of the existing steep slopes and limestone karst bedrock, excavations of over 40 feet deep would be needed to situate such a large monolithic building. The public has concerns about the disruptions this will cause to the local hydrology and groundwater flow. Karst topography is often fragile, being like “Swiss cheese,” which makes it highly susceptible to sinkholes and contamination to the river, groundwater, and local wells.
To dispose of sewer waste, the applicant is proposing a sanitary injection well that will pump wastewater into the karst rock formation. The proposed use of a Class V sanitary injection well violates the performance standards of N.J.A.C. 7:14A-8.4(a)2, which prohibits the movement of contaminants into an Underground Source of Drinking Water if it may adversely affect public health. Overall, such extreme excavation, large stormwater basins and this type of deep wastewater disposal are not suitable for this site above a Category One river.
The proposed industrial development will create hundreds of thousands of square feet of building and motor vehicle impervious surfaces, which will have negative effects on the river. The existing waterways are an essential part of the aquifer that provides clean drinking water to much of the state. A substantial portion of the proposed disturbance lies within a Wellhead Protection Area , and many of the local residents rely on potable wells. In addition, the aquifer beneath the Peter Smith Farm is already in deficit. The applicant is claiming exemption from groundwater recharge requirement 7:8-5.4(b)1, which will worsen the deficit and reduce available groundwater. The impervious coverage of the development and major disturbance of this property will increase surface runoff and disrupt an essential water source and protected river.
This proposed development has no identified tenant, which leaves the building open to the possibility of becoming a non-permitted use. With the existing high vacancy rate of industrial facilities in Warren County (as of May 2026, about 20%), there is no public necessity for demolishing a historic property and its prime farmland to create a big building that may sit empty.
The risks from this development to the surrounding communities, the Musconetcong river, the aquifer, and the wildlife habitats include (but are not limited to) groundwater contamination through the sanitary injection well; light, sound, and environmental pollution from associated truck traffic; and increased flooding . The harming of environmental resources without clear economic benefit to our community simply cannot be justified.
For these reasons and more, I am writing today to ask that you deny the Individual Permit application for the Tinsley proposal. Please put the well-being of the residents of this community and the health of the Musconetcong River and surrounding environment, ahead of the individual wants of this developer.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
