The Morris Township Planning Board on July 7, 2025, voted to find that the Catch Road Redevelopment Plan is “not inconsistent” with the township master plan and referred the ordinance to the Township Committee for further action.

The board’s acting chair, George Quillen, led the meeting after the regular chair and vice chair were absent. Elizabeth Lainey, the board planner, told members the ordinance (referred to in the meeting as Ordinance 23-25) concerns county-owned property identified on the tax map as portions of Block 1901, Block 1540 (West Hanover Avenue) and a portion of Block 10181, and that the board’s task under the Municipal Land Use Law (N.J.S.A. 40:55D-26) was narrowly focused: to report any provisions of the redevelopment plan that are inconsistent with the master plan.

“Lainey said the redevelopment plan contemplates about 50 units of affordable housing and is consistent with the master plan’s goals to preserve residential character while permitting multifamily development in selected locations,” Lainey said. “The redevelopment plan is not inconsistent with the master plan, and it is substantially consistent.”

The planner noted the township’s full master plan was adopted in 1994, with amendments and reexamination reports in 2001, 2007 and most recently 2017. She referenced Morris County’s 2012 study (Plate 5), which had identified locations on the larger block as appropriate for additional affordable housing; the proposed site lies on the same block in a slightly different location. Lainey also tied the project to the township’s housing element and fair‑share plan and said the development would contribute toward the township’s third‑round affordable housing obligations under a settlement with Fair Share Housing Center.

Board members who spoke during the discussion said the proposed location fits the existing built context, which includes other multiunit and special‑needs housing nearby. One board member said the site is “practically a perfect fit” because it is already surrounded by multiunit developments.

The board voted on a resolution endorsing Lainey’s recommendation that the redevelopment plan be found “not inconsistent” and to forward that recommendation to the Township Committee. The motion passed on a roll call vote with all present members voting yes.

Board engineer Joe Vooch addressed environmental questions raised by members of the public, saying that site plans submitted later by the developer will include assessments of wetlands, transition areas and required permits from the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. “The site plans that will come forth will include assessment of wetland impacts, transition areas, and identify all required permitting that would still need to be obtained by the applicant from DEP,” Vooch said.

Members clarified several procedural points: the redevelopment plan’s design standards are binding where the plan uses “shall,” but the plan also contains a typical clause stating that items not addressed in the plan will revert to existing township ordinances. The board was told the developer will be the site‑plan applicant and that the county will retain ownership of the land and is expected to lease it to the developer. The applicant is described in the meeting as a 100% affordable housing developer that will pursue competitive 9% tax credits; the township said it will include reverter clauses so the property reverts to the township or county if the affordable housing is not constructed within required timelines.

During the public‑comment period, a resident identifying a property address raised concerns about wetlands and asked whether an environmental impact assessment would be provided. Vooch responded that wetlands and permitting will be addressed in the later site‑plan submissions. Michael Ryan Gorman, a resident of Normandy Heights, spoke in support of the project, saying he was “hugely supportive” of the township’s affordable‑housing efforts and urged others who support the plan to attend the Township Committee public hearing.

The board noted that the township committee will hold a public hearing on the redevelopment plan at a later date (the planner said that hearing is scheduled for July 16, 2025) and that detailed site plans, renderings and other technical materials will be reviewed by the board at the site‑plan stage. The board’s action on July 7 was limited to the narrow statutory review required under the Municipal Land Use Law and did not substitute for the public hearing before the Township Committee or for the later site‑plan review and required state permits.

The board adjourned after the item and the public‑comment period concluded.