[{"_1":2,"_88":-5,"_89":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6182293,"mediaKeyId","5107065-b2aaf7deac4582c37da108a99cb93cbb","parentId",5107065,"title","Planning board recommends county parcels near Ketch Road for non‑condemnation redevelopment to support affordable housing","audioSeconds",2167,"startMs",1980000,"endMs",4147000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5107065-b2aaf7deac4582c37da108a99cb93cbb&start=1980&end=4147","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5107065-b2aaf7deac4582c37da108a99cb93cbb/thumbnail_1980000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6182293/New-Jersey/Planning-board-recommends-county-parcels-near-Ketch-Road-for-noncondemnation-redevelopment-to-support-affordable-housing","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6182293-8ab2029925cf9cba8cffcb403e404052/orig.mp4?Expires=1770983410&Signature=eOR2MFZ1G6R5OATDq4wHHCSapTbThVqBMR~gwdx7CeoVX8Bd1zlep4TAy5U-3dJHFM6i8iq7qMkcSRpNwn2hGoOrCgWNGH2Xx7h6tnfsgkcCTNngodykkxAF~2~-hYsEuUNT7twBPvB8ZIta3sTNOhHhAF4MKkEl5K56S2FToNBdONVsPk9KqlEfk3MXNc8MFk2wcNlFfXoRfRW8kE7jx1OhgYLkc9OXZMMQ8-lxCxbXLql0WhPrI~e83kK0cvquhbl5spNtbGR58au5OT4jYibcwnEB4UEwwXWFpVfsxSQW-FJjGqDtDN7gYiSVDHgP96x-xLF8R~Gd~TslfNI2PQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Morris Township, NJ","date","2025-06-02T00:00:00Z","article","MORRIS TOWNSHIP, N.J. — On June 2 the Morris Township Planning Board recommended that the township committee declare portions of county‑owned Lots 1 and 1.01 near Ketch Road a non‑condemnation area in need of redevelopment to enable an affordable‑housing project.

Planner John Phillips (testifying in a consulting capacity) told the board the study area totals about 3.5 acres of undeveloped land within larger county holdings and lacks direct street frontage or roadway access. Quoting the statute, Phillips read the c‑criteria of the Local Redevelopment and Housing Law: \"Land that is owned by the municipality, the county, a local housing authority, redevelopment agency or redevelopment entity or unimproved vacant land that has remained so for a period of 10 years prior to adoption of the resolution...and that by reason of its location, remoteness, lack of means of access to develop sections or portions of the municipality...is not likely to be developed through the instrumentality of private capital.\" He told the board the site meets that criterion.

Why it matters: the township is seeking sites to meet a court‑settlement‑related obligation (the board referenced an agreement tied to prior litigation involving the Red Bulls) that would yield about 50 affordable units. Phillips said the parcel’s constraints — public ownership, adjacency to existing county facilities (including a leased township soccer field), wetlands and limited access — make private‑only development unlikely, and that designation as a redevelopment area would give developers access to tax credits, long‑term tax abatement and other financing tools required to deliver 100% affordable housing.

Site specifics and stakeholders: the portion of Lot 1 identified in the study is cut off from the balance of its larger parcel by existing county facilities and by a solar installation; Lot 1.01 (about 3 acres) includes a 10‑bedroom supportive housing facility operated by ARC Morris with an adjoining undeveloped rear area of roughly 1.7 acres. Phillips said access to the developable acreage would likely require an easement through the township‑leased Ketch Road Field parking/driving area, and that county and township staff and the prospective developer have been discussing parcel assembly and access arrangements. Phillips also said the county is amenable to donating the parcel to support affordable‑housing financing, with a reverter clause that would return the land to the county if it is not used for affordable housing.

Board action: Planning Board member motioned to recommend that the governing body adopt the resolution circulated with findings that the site meets the c‑criteria; the motion was amended to include the circulated resolution and was seconded. The transcript records a roll call in which members answered \"yes\"; the board clerk read several board members’ recorded affirmative votes in public (e.g., Dan Otter, Mr. Nunn, Mr. Flowers, Mr. Benoit, Mr. Quellen, Mr. Radian and others recorded as voting yes). The board therefore forwarded a recommendation that the township committee designate the area as an area in need of redevelopment (non‑condemnation).

Next steps: the planning board’s action is a recommendation. The governing body (township committee) must consider and adopt the redevelopment determination and any redevelopment plan. If the governing body concurs, the municipality would finalize a redevelopment plan (which can function as a zoning change), solicit a developer or finalize an agreement with a nonprofit or developer, and the planning board would review site‑plan and consistency issues under the redevelopment plan.

Ending: The board’s recommendation puts the parcels into the next phase of the township’s affordable‑housing strategy; the transcript shows the consultants and municipal staff anticipate further negotiations over access easements, county‑to‑municipal conveyance terms and the developer selection and financing steps to deliver the affordable units.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Morris Township Planning Board - June 2nd 2025","oneSentenceSummary","On June 2 the Morris Township Planning Board recommended that the township committee declare portions of county‑owned Lots 1 and 1.01 near Ketch Road a non‑condemnation area in need of redevelopment to enable an affordable‑housing project.","taxTitle","Morris Township, Morris County, New Jersey","taxId",72799,"location","New Jersey","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6182297,"Planning board reviews minor subdivision at 6 Egbert Avenue; variances and easements required",1922,81000,2003000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5107065-b2aaf7deac4582c37da108a99cb93cbb&start=81&end=2003","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5107065-b2aaf7deac4582c37da108a99cb93cbb/thumbnail_81000.jpg","/articles/6182297/New-Jersey/Planning-board-reviews-minor-subdivision-at-6-Egbert-Avenue-variances-and-easements-required","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6182297-130e1aa6cc0ba56fc554e503b180f14c/orig.mp4?Expires=1770983409&Signature=IIeF0A6LRSOcJVQc7Puk9pU3NNU1XztqWQ1lQ-Is0SR5qXyyJQuqGjHVNc9Luq2iuCOOg5FAJctUd-3j0KmjSGYfh6UVlyKsBXTPrihmgx29B5x6zxmkc1iN1HeVvyGq9vj0gftLlIX4tlzFiXUUbsF25Hfy93gqS6yGAm~KOXpbwtm8eOcvUaFA5Xusoo1Pz9dH7YitSjHl6TaTm4ao~EFjYseS2FuJlU~uxDpuiaIllC-l36SpAGTcKz8sXten3bx2QV80MXPgS~YwoYQ0~J7HYcAGrfSxUxM0tnJwS-iRzAguwD8mgP3V80M7EfupiY8BBa7Oqm-qQORrM2KkdQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","MORRIS TOWNSHIP, N.J. — At its June 2 meeting, the Morris Township Planning Board considered a minor subdivision application to split 6 Egbert Avenue (Block 3105, Lot 6) into two lots and grant bulk variance relief for one parcel.

The application, presented by the applicants’ attorney, Simone Cali of Cali Law LLC, would create a larger Lot 6.01 (about 0.725 acres, roughly 31,557 square feet) with the main dwelling fronting Egbert Avenue and a smaller Lot 6.02 (about 0.258 acres, roughly 11,250 square feet) containing a secondary dwelling that predates the Conklin Avenue right-of-way. \"We are here tonight seeking minor subdivision approval and bulk variance relief,\" Cali told the board.

Board consultant witnesses described the site and constraints that drive the request. Project engineer Joshua Wiry said the whole parcel is \"approximately 0.98 acres and contains 2 residential dwellings.\" Planner Paul Ritchie characterized the situation as \"an exceptional situation,\" telling the board the application seeks to legalize a long‑standing, preexisting nonconforming condition and to meet minimum lot‑area requirements.

Why it matters: the smaller proposed lot (6.02) would require three bulk variances driven mostly by the existing dwelling’s location. The variances discussed were: lot depth (96.6 feet proposed where 100 feet is required), a front‑yard setback that effectively sits 20.3 feet into the right‑of‑way (the board indicated it would grant a 0‑foot setback with the understanding that the township committee would consider a license to authorize the encroachment), and a side‑yard setback (7.5 feet provided where 15 feet is required). Ritchie said meeting the minimum lot area and other bulk chart metrics supports the application under the municipal land use standards.

Supporting details and conditions discussed: the engineer testified that the two dwellings currently share a single sanitary sewer connection and that the applicant is investigating construction of separate sewer services and separate meters as requested by the township engineer. The water utility (referred to in testimony as SMCMUA/the water department) confirmed two separate water service lines and meters exist, but that the service to proposed Lot 6.02 currently crosses Lot 6.01 and therefore an easement will be required; the applicant agreed to establish that easement.

Electrical service was flagged as potentially requiring documentation: the applicant’s engineer said Jersey Central Power & Light (JCP&L) will inspect the site and confirm whether recorded easements are necessary for overhead poles and service lines. The board also pressed the applicant to resolve fence encroachments; the application team said they would stake property lines and have any fence encroachments moved by the contractor. A stone/retaining wall identified on the survey was discussed separately and was not slated for removal; board staff said they would make the approval condition more specific about which encroachments must be corrected.

The board clarified the effect of future work to the existing carriage house that encroaches into Conklin Avenue’s right‑of‑way: current testimony and the board’s counsel said routine maintenance that does not substantially alter the building should be permitted to continue, but any substantial demolition or new construction would need to conform to prevailing zoning standards and require subsequent approvals.

Procedural outcome: board counsel asked for a motion to approve the minor subdivision with the conditions described in review memoranda (removal of fence encroachments, required easements and meter separations, and the township license for the right‑of‑way encroachment as a condition). A motion to approve, with conditions, was moved and seconded at the meeting; the transcript records the motion and second but does not record the board’s vote on the motion in the public portion of the transcript provided.

What’s next: the applicant will coordinate with JCP&L and the township engineer on any required utility easements and will work with the township committee on a license agreement to legalize the carriage house encroachment if the governing body concurs. Any substantial change to the carriage house or a demolition/rebuild would require full zoning and board review.

Ending: The board’s discussion emphasized resolving recorded encroachments and formalizing utility easements before final sign‑offs; the transcript indicates remaining administrative steps (utility confirmations, easement documentation, fence corrections and the governing‑body license) are to be completed as conditions of any final approval.","At its June 2 meeting, the Morris Township Planning Board heard an application to subdivide 6 Egbert Avenue into two lots, requiring bulk variances, utility easements and a township license to legalize a structure that encroaches into the right-of-way.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Planning board recommends county parcels near Ketch Road for non‑condemnation redevelopment to support affordable housing

Planning board reviews minor subdivision at 6 Egbert Avenue; variances and easements required