Board pauses on large addition at 40 Springbrook after heated public testimony; applicant given time to revise

The Morris Township Board of Adjustment spent an extended portion of its March 24 meeting on a contested application for 40 Springbrook by Michael Ewing, which proposed multiple additions and structural changes requiring several bulk variances.

Applicant counsel and project witnesses described plans to renovate and substantially expand a 1930s house, including an enlarged garage, a new rear garage/carriage‑style pool house with a pool and associated equipment, an octagonal dining room addition, and additional living space that would increase visibility toward neighboring properties. The applicant’s witnesses argued the existing house footprint and configuration, including an older, undersized garage and awkward interior circulation, presented practical difficulties that justified variances.

Opposition testimony focused on scale, neighborhood character, privacy impacts and potential property‑value effects. Longtime neighbor Maggie Sellers described the lot pattern, tree‑lined character and past marketability of homes on the block. Counsel for the opposition argued the proposal represented wants rather than needs and urged the board to enforce side yard standards to protect neighbors. Experts for both sides (architects, planners, appraisers and a tree specialist) testified; the board reviewed photo exhibits and appraisals submitted by both sides.

During deliberations board members raised concerns in two areas: the proposed rear carriage/pool building’s height and proximity to an abutting lower‑lying property, and the extent of encroachment by a proposed enlarged garage that would be closer to a neighbor than the existing garage. Specific numeric clarifications were part of the record: the existing left‑side setback at a garage was 17.78 feet and the applicant’s proposed setback was reduced to 14.00 feet; the combined side yard would be 29.44 feet against the 50‑foot requirement; a small front yard deviation measured 49.89 feet where 50 feet is required. Board members and public commenters highlighted that because the rear of the lot slopes, a structure placed there would appear taller to abutting neighbors and could have significant visual impact.

Applicant’s counsel offered a list of potential stipulations and mitigations during the hearing (in the record) including: no apartment in the proposed garage suite; a detailed landscape buffering plan and a one‑year survivability guarantee on plantings; an agreement to replace a large Norway maple (up to 6‑inch caliper) if it died within two years after construction; and consideration of revising the retaining‑wall design to reduce root‑zone disturbance. The board asked the applicant to consider redesigning the rear garage/carriage house to reduce height and visual impact and to provide an overhead context map and a landscape plan that would be shared with immediate neighbors.

After deliberation the board did not vote on variances. Instead members made a motion to carry the application to the May 19, 2025 meeting to give the applicant the opportunity either to amend plans, present revised testimony, or withdraw. One board member noted that withdrawal is the applicant’s option but that the board may decide whether to accept withdrawal if offered. Several board members said they were concerned primarily with the rear carriage/pool building’s height and visual impact on the adjacent neighbor and recommended that the applicant concentrate revision efforts there.

The board recorded the carry date and directed municipal staff to expect revised materials and a landscape plan if the applicant returns; the applicant may also elect to withdraw the application instead of returning.