Van Keuren LLC is seeking approval for a solid-waste transfer station and material-recovery facility at 25 Van Keuren Avenue in Jersey City. The proposed operation would handle about 750 tons of waste a day and generate more than 260 truck trips daily, according to Sustainable Jersey City. The property is currently used as a truck depot by Joseph Smentkowski Inc., a waste company, according to Hudson County View.
Review under the Environmental Justice Law
The application is being treated as a test of New Jersey’s Environmental Justice Law because it would be the first permit application for a new waste facility evaluated under the law, according to reporting by Hudson County View. The law requires an environmental-justice review when a proposed facility could add pollution or other public-health stressors in an overburdened community. The New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division, said the review includes existing and potential stressors, cumulative impacts and measures that could avoid a disproportionate impact. If the impact cannot be avoided, the project must meet the law’s requirements for an essential health or environmental need or a compelling public interest; otherwise, the permit must be denied.
That legal framework does not itself resolve the Van Keuren application. A 2001 appellate case, reproduced by FindLaw, held that the state Department of Environmental Protection has exclusive responsibility for approving transfer-station locations. No reviewed evidence shows that NJDEP has issued a final decision in this matter.
What the proposal would add to the area
Opponents say the proposed facility would add diesel emissions, noise and heavy-truck traffic to an area that already has environmental burdens. Sustainable Jersey City says there are two or three transfer stations within a mile, along with 14 hospitals, nursing homes or medical centers and 19 parks, playgrounds or open spaces. The organization also reports that Jersey City has the highest adult asthma rate in Hudson County, while the American Lung Association gave the county a D for air quality in 2025. Those figures are advocacy-group claims, not findings in a final NJDEP decision.
Planning context for the site
A January 2020 draft redevelopment plan prepared by the New Jersey Sports and Exposition Authority described the Van Keuren site as part of an established industrial area and encouraged redevelopment with industrial uses, according to the New Jersey Sports and Exposition Authority. That planning description provides context for the site’s industrial setting but does not determine whether the proposed facility will receive environmental or operating permits. The plan cited here does not independently identify nearby sensitive land uses. The hospitals, nursing homes, medical centers, parks and open spaces described above come from Sustainable Jersey City’s account and remain advocacy-group claims rather than findings in a final agency decision.
An April 28 public hearing drew roughly 100 people in person and another 100 online, according to the New Jersey Environmental Justice Alliance. The alliance said no speaker supported the project. It reported that proponents cited market choice in waste and recycling, support for state recycling goals, about 14 jobs and service to 14 municipalities, while attendees raised concerns about traffic, pollution, noise, views and odors.
Claims made at the organizing forum
At a later organizing forum at DiFeo Auto Group on Route 440, participants including Brooke Helmick of the New Jersey Environmental Justice Alliance, Hudson County Commissioner Bill O’Dea, Ward B Councilman Joel Brooks and Shirin MacCormack of the McGinley Square Community Board opposed approval, Hudson County View reported. The report said O’Dea discussed his role in stopping a similar Kearny facility in the 1980s, while Brooks argued that the project should not proceed under state law. These statements were reported from the forum and were not independently obtained for this article.
Attorney Maggie Broughton of the Eastern Environmental Justice Law Center told the forum that, in her assessment, the proposal would fail 19 of 26 stressor tests. Hudson County View reported that Broughton expected litigation to remain possible and that Helmick said opponents would challenge an approval in court. The report also said an online comment form had received 500 submissions opposing the facility. Those figures and predictions are attributed statements, not determinations by NJDEP or a court.
Next procedural steps
The next public-hearing date and location have not been announced. Under the timeline described in the forum reporting, a subsequent hearing would be followed by 30 days for written comments; Van Keuren would then have 45 days to respond, followed by a 45-day period for NJDEP to issue a public decision. The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection says the Environmental Justice Law requires it to evaluate environmental and public-health impacts on overburdened communities. Sustainable Jersey City has said it plans to hold another organizing meeting in Greenville.
