Morris Township planners carry Piccolo subdivision after debate over new tax‑map right‑of‑way

The Morris Township Planning Board on May 4 continued the public hearing on a proposed two‑lot subdivision for Block 3501, Lot 6 (35 Schoolhouse Lane), carrying the matter to the board’s June 15 meeting after testimony about whether a recent tax‑map revision increased the road right‑of‑way.

Applicant counsel Jason Veil told the board the application proposes two single‑family lots and that maps the team reviewed historically showed a 50‑foot right‑of‑way for Schoolhouse Lane. Veil said the applicant received an updated municipal tax map dated Jan. 30, 2026 showing a 66‑foot right‑of‑way; the applicant has not located any ordinances or resolutions that formally changed the dedication. “We received a tax‑map update on 01/30/2026 that shows the right‑of‑way has now been increased to 66 feet,” Veil said, and added the applicant would present proofs on the more conservative 66‑foot basis while leaving the legal determination to the township.

Professional land surveyor and engineer Kirsten Osterkorn reviewed the plans and a pair of exhibits comparing the 50‑ and 66‑foot dimensions. Osterkorn told the board the applicant’s April 23, 2026 plan set lists lot areas of roughly 2.003 and 2.156 acres under a 50‑foot assumption and about 1.947 and 2.101 acres under a 66‑foot assumption. She testified the proposed house footprints and lot layouts comply with setback, height, stormwater and RSIS driveway standards, but acknowledged the application requires variances for lot area and, in one measurement under the 66‑foot assumption, a de minimis lot‑width variance.

Planner Matt Flynn, qualified by the board as an expert, said the application is a reasonable infill proposal in an area with many nonconforming lots and argued the balance of statutory criteria under the Municipal Land Use Law favors approval. Flynn pointed to the proposal’s lower building and impervious coverage compared with what could be built as‑of‑right on the parent parcel and referenced the Kauffman precedent as a framework for the c(2) balancing test.

Board members pressed the applicant’s team on several points: whether the conceptual house footprint for the new lot is “maximized,” whether the board can require deed restrictions or resolution conditions to lock in the proposed coverage percentages, and whether neighboring lot acreages should be recalculated on a 66‑foot basis as well. Counsel and witnesses agreed a deed restriction or a condition in the board’s resolution could be used to bind future development to the bulk numbers approved by the board; they also agreed to research prior approvals and deed records for nearby nonconforming lots.

Neighbor counsel Rob Simon questioned the absence of final architectural elevations for the conceptual Lot 6.02 and the lack of septic design work; the applicant’s team said the second lot’s building design remains conceptual and that septic siting has not yet been finalized for the undeveloped lot.

After the exchanges the board announced that the hearing will be carried to June 15, 2026 at 7:00 p.m. at the municipal building; the applicant agreed to extend the board’s jurisdiction through June 30, 2026. The board also marked the township’s current tax maps (sheets 35 and 36, revised Jan. 30, 2026) as a board exhibit and asked the applicant to provide a clearer comparative exhibit and OPRA records for surrounding lot approvals.

The hearing resumes June 15; no final vote was taken on the subdivision during the May 4 session.