Bruin family seeks to revive South Street Gardens with coffee shop and 48‑seat event space; hearing carried to Aug. 25

The Morris Township Board of Adjustment on July 28 heard a multi‑witness presentation from the applicants for 383 South Street LLC — the Bruin family — seeking use relief to operate a revived South Street Gardens with a small coffee/refreshment center and a supervised Second‑Floor event space for up to about 48 people. The hearing included operational testimony from family representatives, engineering and architectural evidence, traffic analysis, and several supportive neighborhood comments; the matter was carried to August 25 for completion.

Attorney Larry Kelly opened the applicant’s case, describing the 2.5‑acre site’s history as a garden center and the owner’s roughly $4 million investment to rehabilitate buildings and grounds. Witnesses included operations representatives (Matthew Bruin and Michael Tobia), project engineer Fred Stewart, architect Joseph Solfaro and traffic engineer Craig Peregoy (Dynamic Traffic). The application seeks D‑type use relief (D‑1 and D‑2) for a partially new use — an event space and an integrated refreshment/coffee area adjacent to garden retail — plus limited bulk variances for front yard setbacks, impervious coverage and fence heights where existing conditions predate current ordinances.

Operational testimony: Matthew Bruin and Mr. Tobia said the event space is intended for garden‑focused activities, workshops and modest community events (flower arranging, gardening classes and occasional small private celebrations). The upstairs assembly area is approximately 2,100 square feet with seating for roughly 40–48 people, two means of egress and hours proposed up to 11 a.m.–10 p.m. on weekends (weeknight hours expected to be earlier). The family emphasized that events will be supervised by on‑site family members and that the venue will not supply alcohol itself; any alcohol would be brought by a licensed caterer and must comply with municipal alcoholic beverage control rules.

Site and engineering evidence: Project engineer Fred Stewart reviewed revised plans (last revision 05/16/25) and existing nonconformities: a boiler‑room building at 0.7 feet front yard where 50 feet is required, a second building within a 14.8‑foot front yard condition, and impervious coverage previously as high as an estimated ~58% before demolition of buildings. Stewart testified existing coverage now registers ~51.4% and the proposal reduces coverage by about 4,473.8 square feet to a proposed 47.2% (45% permitted). The plan includes the removal of several structures, a new courtyard area, 82 on‑site parking stalls (plus two EV stalls and about 10 stalls in the public right‑of‑way across Pear Street that the applicant has been using operationally), accessible parking near entries, a dumpster enclosure, and new landscaping and screening (32 and 21 green giant arborvitae plantings along critical boundaries).

Architectural testimony: Architect Joseph Solfaro presented elevations, floor plans and the Second‑Floor event layout (two stair egresses, 2 toilets upstairs, prep kitchen for caterers). Solfaro said the assembly space falls under thresholds that do not require an elevator per ADA/ANSI guidance. He also described mechanical rooms and condenser locations and confirmed ADA compliance will be provided at building entries and accessible parking.

Traffic and parking: Traffic engineer Craig Peregoy used ITE and NJDOT guidance to estimate incremental trips from the café and event space. He reported modest peak‑hour increases — about +11 weekday AM peak, +15 weekday PM peak, and +22 Saturday midday peak — well below NJDOT thresholds for a significant traffic impact; intersection level‑of‑service tests remained acceptable under conservative growth assumptions. Peregoy performed shared‑parking analysis accounting for staggered hours and found typical demand substantially below supply; he estimated a practical peak parking need of 61 cars (weekday) to 68 (weekend) in conservative calculations, and emphasized operational flexibility (use of the 10 right‑of‑way stalls and staggered hours) would handle occasional peaks.

Board concerns and conditions requested: Board members and professionals asked for several clarifications and plan revisions: (1) add site triangles and demonstrate sight lines for the freestanding sign currently partly in county right‑of‑way (applicant will seek a county waiver or relocate sign onto property); (2) clarify dumpster/loading access and consider not striping parking immediately in front of the loading/dumpster area to allow truck movements; (3) provide final signage and way‑finding language for the Whitney Avenue access (signage/authorized use only and on‑site staff direction rather than a permanent gate); (4) provide updated health department correspondence and final kitchen/food‑service details; and (5) agree objective limits for outdoor amplified music and catered/served food to reduce enforcement ambiguities. The applicant agreed to revise plans and provide requested details.

Public comment and outcome: Several nearby residents spoke in support of the project, praising rehabilitation work and neighborhood engagement by the Bruin family. Given the volume of outstanding testimony and outstanding plan refinements, the board agreed to carry BA‑04‑25 to the August 25, 2025 agenda to hear final traffic/parking testimony and planning testimony and to consider any final conditions. The meeting was adjourned with at least one witness (planner) still to testify at the continuance.

What remains to be filed/confirmed: site‑triangle sightline diagrams for the South Street/Pear Street intersection; county waiver or new sign location; updated health department letter and food‑service compliance; final dumpster/loading turning plans and designation of any 'employee only' stalls; and any written conditions limiting outdoor music, alcohol use (by caterer only), and hours of events. The board requested those items be in the record when the hearing resumes on August 25.