Morris Planning Board continues Piccolo minor subdivision after objections over notice, required variances and missing plans

The Morris Planning Board on Oct. 20 took testimony and heard objections to PB0825, an application by Mark and Lynn Piccolo to subdivide 35 Schoolhouse Lane (Lot 3501, Block 6) in the R A 130 residential zone into two lots. Objectors' attorney Rob Simon said the published notice and application did not identify all required bulk variances — including a per-family density/lot-density issue — and that the board and public lacked architectural elevations and other materials needed to evaluate negative criteria for multiple requested variances. Applicant counsel Nancy Lawtonville and the board’s professionals disagreed on those points; the board allowed the hearing to proceed and carried the matter for further testimony to Dec. 1, 2025 at 7 p.m.

Why this matters: The subdivision would create two single-family building lots where the zone’s bulk rules require roughly 3-acre minimums. Objectors argued the application increases density and seeks multiple lot-area/lot-width reductions that were not spelled out in published notice, potentially affecting neighbors’ ability to review and contest the proposal. The board’s decision to continue means more evidence and argument will be taken before any formal vote.

Objectors’ concerns and legal argument

Rob Simon of Herald Law, representing neighbors, told the board the applicant’s notice listed six variances but omitted an additional density/lot-density variance tied to the ordinance’s “per family” square-foot metric. Simon said relevant case law and the township ordinance require sufficient information — floor plans and elevations — so the board and public can judge whether granting variances would cause substantial detriment to the zone plan. “For the board to properly assess the negative criteria … it needs floor plans and elevations,” Simon said during cross-examination of the applicant’s witnesses.

Applicant and board counsel responses

Applicant counsel Nancy Lawtonville said the subdivision was properly noticed, that the notice included a catchall savings clause for additional bulk variances, and that the Technical Review Committee had deemed the application complete. She told the board that the applicant was not seeking site-plan approval for construction and that one- and two-family dwellings in Morris Township do not require site-plan review under a recent local ordinance change; the submitted plans include conceptual footprints to show a home can fit within required building envelopes.

Board attorney and the chair (recorded in transcript as advising the board) reviewed New Jersey precedent cited by both sides and concluded that, on balance, the board could proceed with the hearing without requiring architectural elevations up front. The chair accepted that the notice and application were sufficient for the hearing stage, while preserving the board’s ability to require additional materials later.

Applicant testimony and engineering evidence

Property owner Mark Piccolo testified about buying the property, the decision to build a new single-story house, and the applicant team’s plan to split the remaining land. He said the house under construction was sited where it is for functional reasons (driveway orientation, pool placement) and that he and his wife have no immediate plans for the second lot.

Engineer Kirsten Osterkorn testified to the revised subdivision plan dated 10/01/2025 and explained a chain-of-title/right-of-way finding that changed the parent-lot area used in the subdivision calculations. The plan team identified a 25-foot half-width right-of-way along Schoolhouse Lane based on field evidence and deed research; deducting that right-of-way reduced the parent parcel from approximately 4.5 acres to about 4.159 acres (a subtraction of roughly 15,247 square feet). Osterkorn testified the proposed lot frontages at the dedicated right-of-way exceed roughly 300 feet measured along the public right-of-way (proposed Lot 6.01 ~302.4 ft; Lot 6.02 ~301 ft), and that both lots comply with building and impervious coverage limits as shown on the submitted plan set. Key submitted coverage figures the engineer reported: Lot 6.01 building coverage 3,833 sq ft (≈4.4% where 10% is permitted); Lot 6.01 impervious 13,771 sq ft (≈15.8% where 25% is permitted); Lot 6.02 building coverage 3,400 sq ft (≈3.4%); Lot 6.02 impervious 10,018 sq ft (≈10%). Combined building coverage for the parent parcel as proposed is 7,233 sq ft where 13,680 is permitted; combined impervious 23,789 sq ft where 32,670 is permitted.

Outstanding technical items and environmental review

Osterkorn said each proposed lot would have its own well and septic systems and that the plan shows conceptual disposal fields and seepage pits for drainage; however, specific as-built drainage calculations for the new Lot 6.02 and detailed soil testing for that lot were not in the record at hearing. The engineer agreed that cumulative thresholds for future development will be evaluated at the time of any future building permit application and that the current block grading was processed as a minor development for the house under construction. The applicant indicated agreement to environmental-commission suggestions recorded in a July 21 report (plant-selection guidance, dark-sky-compliant lighting, and stormwater management best practices).

Process, schedule and next steps

After extensive cross-examination and public questions, the board agreed to continue the hearing. The applicant’s team and objectors were told the matter is carried without further notice to Monday, Dec. 1, 2025 at 7 p.m., at the same location. The board or its professionals may request additional documentation (for example, drainage/stormwater calculations, detailed septic/percolation data for Lot 6.02, and/or architectural elevations) prior to or at the continued hearing.

What remains unsettled

- Objectors maintain the notice and application lacked required identification of a density/lot-density variance and emphasize the absence of elevations/floor plans to judge negative criteria.

- The applicant’s team says the application was complete for a minor subdivision and that plan-level “building footprints” are sufficient for the subdivision stage; architectural plans for Lot 6.02 were not submitted.

- Engineer testimony established the right-of-way deduction that reduced total acreage; several survey, monumentation and title-history items remain available for follow-up in the record.

The continued hearing will give the board further opportunity to resolve the completeness questions and to weigh any additional technical submissions or objections.