Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors press board over drainage, size and basement 'kitchen' use as board considers large Nwood Drive renovation
Summary
At an April 27 Morris Township Board of Adjustment meeting, the board heard hours of testimony and public comment on Nwood Holding LLC’s variance application for 40 Nwood Drive. The applicant agreed to multiple plan revisions — including removing dormers, limiting basement cooking to a wet bar and making the attic non‑habitable — and the hearing was continued to June 22 for revised plans and engineering verification.
At a public hearing on April 27, 2026, the Morris Township Board of Adjustment heard detailed testimony and prolonged neighborhood questioning about an application by Nwood Holding LLC to renovate and substantially enlarge a single‑family home at 40 Nwood Drive (BA‑25‑25).
Architect and planner Jeffrey Goen told the board the applicant has eliminated a previously sought building‑height variance by lowering first‑ and second‑floor ceiling heights and the roof pitch so the ridge would measure under the 35‑foot maximum (presented on the record as 34.88 ft). He said a prior survey error had been corrected — the lot was recalculated at 15,791.7 square feet — and that the remaining requests were two side‑yard variances and a combined‑sideyard variance tied to the lot’s tapered geometry.
Goen summarized interior changes the applicant proposed: the project keeps the home a single‑family dwelling, reconfigures first‑ and second‑floor living areas, enlarges a rear sunroom and previously included a partially habitable attic and a large basement kitchen area. On the record he denied plans to use the house as a rooming or rental property: "that is not at all contemplated," he said, adding the owner intends to live on the property with his family.
Neighbors repeatedly raised three connected concerns: the overall scale of the home and how its finished area was being measured, the effect on neighborhood sightlines and character, and potentially worsened stormwater or drainage impacts. Multiple residents asked for a simple, comparable measure of size; the architect said "warm floor" and gross under‑roof totals differ and agreed to supply a corrected, itemized table of existing and proposed area broken out by first floor, second floor, habitable attic (if any), and finished basement.
Public safety and environmental questions focused on stormwater: speakers said an underground stream runs behind properties and recounted prior flooding in the area. The applicant said the civil drawings include a dry‑well and storm‑management details and that the proposed grading and underground storage should not increase off‑site runoff; the board engineer (Joe Voych) and applicant agreed that the town’s engineering review and any required site permit would need to confirm the calculations.
The basement arrangement prompted the sharpest neighborhood exchange. Mr. Goen described a large basement food‑prep area for the owner’s hobby baking. Neighbors and board members pressed whether the space could function as a commercial or cottage‑food operation. Jason Church asked if the board could require the condition be recorded in the chain of title so future buyers would be notified; Mr. Goen replied, "I think that's a good idea," and the applicant agreed to explore a recorded deed notice or similar restriction. Later in the meeting the applicant offered on the record to reclassify that area as a wet bar (sink and refrigerator) rather than a full kitchen.
After a break the applicant proposed three further revisions to address concerns: remove three front dormers, convert the previously described habitable attic to non‑habitable storage (plywood floor only), and limit the basement space to a wet bar instead of a range/oven kitchen. The applicant also offered to reduce the depth of a front bump‑out so the corner setback would be recorded as 29.4 feet (the architect said he would revise plans to show that number). The board asked for corrected elevation sheets (stripping remnant notations showing an older 38.4 ft ridge) and for the applicant to submit a full revised plan set showing the edits and corrected numeric tables at least 10 days before the continued hearing.
No final vote was taken on BA‑25‑25. The board left the public portion open and set a continuation for June 22, 2026. The board’s list of deliverables before that meeting included: a corrected plan set incorporating the dormer removal, non‑habitable attic notation, wet‑bar-only basement plan, and the 29.4‑foot side‑yard notation; an itemized square‑footage summary (existing and proposed, warm‑floor and under‑roof); stormwater verification (civil/drainage calculations); and a landscape/buffer plan for the side yard. If the board requires it, the applicant signaled willingness to record a deed notice or similar restriction to limit future conversion of the basement or attic without further board review.
