WolfeNotes.com

Chesterfield, NJ Was A Pioneer In Farmland And Historic Preservation

The Murphy DEP Rubber Stamps Another Huge Warehouse

The above map is from DEP – it’s pretty colors mask what the landscape really looks like. Does this landscape look appropriate for a massive warehouse and truck traffic and polluted stormwater runoff? Look:

There has been an explosion of millions of square feet of highly unpopular warehouse development during the Murphy Administration.

But public criticism, environmental group opposition, and negative media attention have focused almost exclusively on failures by local government “home rule” planning and zoning, or failure to enact new legislation, thereby giving Governor Murphy and his DEP an accountability free zone.

Few people understand that DEP has regulatory power to block warehouse developments that they have not enforced, instead choosing to rubber stamp numerous warehouse developments.

The latest DEP rubber stamp approval is in Chesterfield, ironically once a State leader in farmland and historic preservation. Burlington County, led by the folks in Chesterfield, was way out front in leading and establishing these important programs.

Now in Chesterfield, the DEP is proposing a “site specific” amendment to the regional “Tri-County” water quality management plan to allow a new septic system to serve as massive 1.13 million square foot warehouse and office park in rural historic Chesterfield Township in Burlington County.

A “site specific” DEP approval is kind of like “spot zoning” – it’s the antithesis of planning.

The DEP will hold a virtual “public hearing” tomorrow (8/14) at noon – hit this link for information on how to comment or monitor what’s going on.

I just became aware of this proposal an hour ago this morning, so will post the basic info and a few preliminary thoughts as aheads up, before I actually review the plan amendment.

The DEP proposal states:

The proposed amendment, identified as the “Old York Country Club Warehouse” (Program Interest No. 435433, Activity No. AMD220009) would establish a 115.6-acre sewer service area (SSA) for a proposed 1,135,260 square foot (SF) building consisting of 1,115,260 SF of warehouse space and 20,000 SF of office space on Block 701, Lot 2.01 in Chesterfield Township, Burlington County. … The proposed project will generate a projected wastewater flow of 19,985 gallons per day based on flow calculated in accordance with 7:9A-7.4 and is to be served by a new onsite discharge to groundwater wastewater treatment and disposal system to be regulated under a new NJPDES permit.

Putting the cart before the horse, prior to tomorrow’s public hearing, the DEP has already determined that the proposal complies with DEP regulations:

This notice represents the Department’s determination that the proposed amendment is compliant with the applicable regulatory criteria at N.J.A.C. 7:15, as described below.

And check out how DEP failed to address basic land use planning considerations. Note in particular how DEP totally abdicates any DEP State role in essentially deferring to local plans (emphasis mine):

Pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:15-4.4(h)1 and 2, the Department considered the land uses allowed in adopted zoning ordinances, future land uses shown in adopted municipal and county master plans, and other local land use objectives. The Township of Chesterfield adopted the “Old York Redevelopment Plan” on October 27, 2022, via Ordinance No. 2022-15 (amended by Ordinance No. 2022-17 on December 8,2022). The proposed project was deemed consistent with the Redevelopment Plan in Resolution 2022-12-22 and received Bulk Variance and Preliminary Major Site Plan approval on October 17, 2023, via Resolution No 2023-10. The Burlington County Department of Resource Conservation issued a letter, dated April 9, 2021, stating that Burlington County has not adopted a master plan for development, but has adopted a Highway Master Plan. Any site plan for land development must be reviewed by the County Planning Board to determine if such development would impact County roads or County drainage facilities.

Because this is a DEP approval of a “water quality management plan”, one would assume that water quality was rigorously considered and a priority consideration by the DEP.

One would be wrong.

There is none.

There is no “antidegradation review” and water quality impact analysis on nearby Blacks Creek, on groundwater, or in wetlands that are present on the site. The DEP did not evaluate the impacts of the project and whether it complies with surface and ground water quality standards. According to DEP’s own GIS data:

The Department determined that there are wetlands located on the project site based on the “Wetlands 2012” GIS data layer, in accordance with N.J.A.C. 7:15-4.4(e)4; however, pursuant to N.J.A.C. 7:15-4.4(j)3, the applicant provided a Freshwater Wetlands Letter of Interpretation (LOI)/Line Verification File #0300-20-0002.1 FWW200001 confirming that there are no wetlands within the proposed sewer service area.

The plan calls for a large septic system to discharge 20,000 gallons per day of wastewater to groundwater. Not only does the DEP approval fail to assess impacts to groundwater and whether groundwater quality standards can be met (including the antidegradation policy), but the DEP previously had a policy to strongly discourage “site specific” approvals of large septic systems in rural and agricultural areas. The Murphy DEP has quietly abandoned that policy.

Obviously, there are multiple other stormwater, flooding, traffic, air pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, energy, noise, light pollution, and public safety impacts from this massive development.

These are largely beyond the scope of this brief note, particularly as I just became aware of it an hour ago.

But I hope that the public raises hell and holds DEP accountable.

And that the media finally reports critically on DEP’s role in rubber stamping all these poorly planned warehouse developments that are destroying what’s left of NJ’s farms, forests, water quality, and rural character.