The Morris Township Board of Adjustment continued the public hearing for South Street Gardens on Oct. 27 after extended testimony from nearby residents and objectors’ experts. The continuation was set for Dec. 8, 2025 at 7:00 p.m.

Background and contested issues
The application (continued from July 28 and Aug. 25, 2025) proposes modifications and improvements to an existing retail/garden‑center property and ancillary uses including a coffee/food area and an event space. Objectors raised objections on multiple fronts: the intensity and character of the proposed uses (public coffee shop, private events/weddings), nighttime lighting, noise from outdoor events and claimed recent tree clearing. Objectors argued the site has historically been a low‑intensity nursery/greenhouse operation and that the proposed uses would convert the site into a higher‑intensity, event‑driven venue incompatible with the RA‑15 neighborhood.

Public and expert testimony
Resident John Weiskerber (20 Prospect Place) testified that he was “absolutely opposed to the application,” described two recent evening gatherings at which he could hear announcements and music at his house, and said floodlights near the Event Building shine toward Prospect Place. He said he recorded an audio‑visual clip on Sept. 13 that shows a sudden transition from quiet to loud music and announcements; technical issues prevented playback during the meeting but the clip was marked Exhibit O‑5 and the board asked for a copy to be submitted for the record.

Objectors’ counsel Phil Rosenbach introduced a set of witnesses scheduled to testify: resident objectors, a civil engineer (Mark Chisvett), a wetlands scientist (Darren LaBrake), an acoustical engineer (Jack Zebura) and a planner (Alexander McLean). Rosenbach said new materials (a planning report) were circulated to the parties earlier that day and asked that objector witnesses proceed efficiently.

Civil engineer findings and stormwater dispute
Objector civil engineer Mark Chisvett analyzed three depictions of site conditions: the applicant’s proposed plan set, a 2020 aerial obtained from NJ GeoWeb, and a recent drone image taken in August 2025. Chisvett testified that the on‑the‑ground condition captured by the 2025 drone photo shows significantly more gravel and constructed walkways than the applicant’s plan represents. He presented area takeoffs and summarized the delta as follows (figures presented in testimony and exhibits):

- Aerial/2020 imagery impervious area (as read from NJ GeoWeb): ~23,100 sq ft (two different aerial‑based measures around 23,000–23,600 sq ft were cited in testimony).
- Applicant’s proposed impervious area (from plan set): ~51,080 sq ft (plan figures in the applicant materials).
- Chisvett’s drone‑based measurement of existing on‑the‑ground impervious area (Aug. 2025 photos): ~70,000 sq ft (measured by Chisvett from the recent aerial).

Chisvett explained the township stormwater ordinance definition for "major development" (ordinance 18‑21): the creation of a quarter‑acre (10,000 sq ft) or more of new impervious surface since Feb. 2, 2004 triggers the major development requirements. He testified that the on‑the‑ground impervious area shown in the drone imagery, compared with earlier aerials and the plan set, demonstrates a substantial increase that likely requires compliance with major‑development stormwater controls (detention for 2‑, 10‑ and 100‑year storms and water‑quality treatment for runoff from motor‑vehicle surfaces).

Noise, lighting and neighborhood impacts
Multiple residents described evening events with loud music, public announcements and lighting that they said carry into Prospect Place. One resident attempted to play a phone video showing the sound change and lighting but the file could not be played for the room; the recording was marked for the record and will be submitted. Objectors said tree clearing in the rear of the site removed a visual and sound buffer.

Next steps
Because technical issues prevented the video from being played and because the objectors’ expert panel had only begun direct testimony, the board continued the hearing to Dec. 8, 2025 at 7:00 p.m. Remaining testimony expected at the continuation includes the acoustical engineer, wetlands witness and planner for the objectors; the applicant indicated it may recall one witness in rebuttal and the parties were asked to exchange materials in advance. The board also requested further documentation (historic aerials, building permits or other permits 2004–present) to clarify whether existing improvements were lawfully placed and to establish the proper baseline for calculating cumulative impervious increases under the 2004 threshold.