2011 development activity report

7/31/2019 2011 Development Activity Report

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2011-development-activity-report 1/21

2011

Development Activity Report

Prepared by

The Morris County Planning Board



On the Cover

T

he East Hanover Avenue corridor en-compasses three municipalities: HanoverTownship to the east, Morris Town-ship to the west and Morris Plans to the

north. This area hosts a wide variety of land uses.Hundreds of thousands of square feet in largeand small scale industrial and ofce use lie alongEast Hanover Avenue and within the immedi-ate vicinity of this roadway. Interspersed amongthese commercial and industrial uses and abut-ting the corridor are residential neighborhoods,public facilities (Mennen Arena, Morris CountyLibrary, Morris County Garage and Frelinghuy-sen Arboretum) and a variety of retail and serviceuses from car washes and banks to the 275,000square foot Cedar Knolls Plaza shopping center.

As illustrated by the highlighted properties onthe cover, this area is experiencing a signicantamount of redevelopment and growth. In or-der to prepare for the intensication of use alongthis corridor and increase in trafc, the County isspearheading a corridor study with the assistanceof the New Jersey Department of Transportation.The purpose of the corridor study is to project thefuture growth along the corridor and determinemitigation measures to improve the trafc owthroughout the area. As promoted by the State

and the County, continued revitalization along thecorridor will create new jobs and support the lo-cal and regional economy. A well-planned, multi- jurisdictional approach for managing local andthrough trafc along this portion of East HanoverAvenue will benet the region. Thoughtful andinformed planning will allow economic develop-ment to occur in a manner that protects the highquality of life expected throughout Morris County.

The East Hanover Corridor Study is expected to becompleted in 2012. Information regarding the study

(agendas, minutes, meeting presentations, etc.) canbe found at http://morrisdot.org/accessories/transportation-ehanoveravecorridorstudy.asp

The highlighted properties on the cover rep-resent the properties along the East HanoverCorridor that are in various stages of rede-velopment and are described as follows:

Blue - “Waterview at Hanover” aka “Sunrise” is a town home development on an 18.62 acre

property. Due to the decline in the age restrict-ed market, the project was modied from a 120unit age restricted project to a 60 unit attachedtown home project. Morris County Planning

Board issued minor subdivision and site planapproval for this project in October 2011

Green - Airtron Litten aka. Northrup Grum man. This 18.82 acre former industrial site isin the process of being remediated for vari-ous types of contamination. The building hasbeen demolished. Once the property is reme-diated, it should be suitable for redevelop-ment into a ex use or possibly commercial

Orange - “Dendreon Inc.” This 29.65 acre redeveloped property currently houses a 165,005

sq ft research and development/warehousefacility. The site formerly housed a ware-house for the Mennen Corporation and wasalso used for a medical laboratory/ware-house. Morris County Planning Board issuedsite plan approval for this project in 2009

Yellow - “Hanover at Horsehill” This 12.25 acre site consists of two former industrial properties

a heating oil distributor and ThermoplasticsInc. This is a redevelopment project that wiltransform the two vacant industrial properties

into a shopping complex that includes a 3,000sq. ft. bank, 10,000 sq. ft. multi tenant retailbuilding and an 80,048 sq. ft. Shoprite super-market along with related site improvementsThe applicant submitted a site plan applicationto the Morris County Planning Board in 2011

Aqua

- “Blanchard Securities” For this redevel-opment, construction is currently underway fora new 20,297 sq. ft. ofce building, renovationsto an existing 10,000 sq. ft. ofce building andrelated site improvements. An existing ex-use

building was demolished for this redevelopmentproject. Morris County Planning Board site planapproval was granted for this project in 2009

Purple - This is the former Berlex industrial site The property was formerly an assemblage of lots

totaling approximately 43 acres. The propertyhas since been subdivided into a 15.5 acre par-cel (eastern portion of site) and +/- 27 acre par-cel (western portion of site). The Morris CountyPlanning Board has reviewed and approved an



application for the 15.5 acre parcel for the con-struction of 78 affordable multi family rentalunits and related site improvements. The unitswill be contained in six buildings and site accesswill be from Horsehill Rd. It is anticipated that abig box type retail store and associated satellitebuildings will be proposed for the western par-cel. This project will add 100,000 sf of new re-tail space. The Morris County Planning Boardexpects this application to come in during 2012.



2012

Board of Chosen FreeholdersWilliam J. Chegwidden, Director

Douglas R. Cabana, Deputy Director

Gene Feyl

Ann F. GrossiHank Lyon

Thomas J. Mastrangelo

John J. Murphy

County Administrator John Bonanni

Morris County Department ofPlanning & Development

Deena Cybulski, P.P., A.I.C.P., Director

Morris County Planning Board Joseph Falkoski, Chairman

Steve Rattner, Vice-Chairman

Isobel W. Olcott, Secretary

William J. Chegwidden, Freeholder Director

Ted Eppel

Ann. F. Grossi, Freeholder

Stephen Hammond, P.E., County Engineer

Edward McCarthyEverton Scott

Gene F. Feyl, Freeholder Alternate

Paul VanGelder, Alternate No.1

Stephen Jones, Alternate No.2

Christine Marion, P.P., A.I.C.P., Planning Director

W. Randall Bush, Esq. Attorney, First Assistant Morris County Counsel

Land Development Review StaffGregory Perry, P.P., Supervising Planner

Joseph Barilla, P.P., A.I.C.P., Senior Planner, Primary Author

Lauren Thomas, Data Control Clerk

Graphics and LayoutGene Cass, Supervising Cartographer



Table of Contents

Section 1 Page

Introduction ......................................................................................................................................1

A Closer Look ..................................................................................................................................2

Single Family Housing ............................................................................................................2

Attached and Multi-Family Housing ....................................................................................2

Commercial, Industrial and Ofce ........................................................................................2

Development Data...........................................................................................................................5

Revised Submissions ...............................................................................................................5

New Submissions .....................................................................................................................5

Charts

Chart A: Total Submissions Reviewed, 2002-2011......................................................................5

Chart B: New Subdivision Plats Reviewed, 2002-2011 ..............................................................6

Chart C: Number of New Residential Building Lots from

Subdivision Plats, 2002-2011 ..........................................................................................6

Chart D: Townhouses & Multi-Family Units from New Site

Plans Reviewed, 2002-2011 ............................................................................................6

Chart E: New Site Plans Reviewed, 2002-2011 ............................................................................6

Chart F: Amount of New Floor Area from New Non-Residential

Site Plans Reviewed, 2002-2011 .....................................................................................7

Chart G: Single Family Building Lots from Major Subdivisions

Recorded at the Morris County Clerk’s Ofce, 2002-2011 ........................................7



Section II Page

Tables

Table 1: 2011 Number of Plats Reviewed ....................................................................................9

Table 2: 2011 New Submissions ..................................................................................................10

Table 3: 2011 Revised Submissions .............................................................................................11

Table 4: 2007-2011 Number of Single Family House Lots from Major Subdivisions ..........12

Table 5: 2011 Preliminary Single Family Residential Subdivisions Plats ..............................13

Table 6: 2011 Proposed Townhouse & Multi-Family Site Plans of 20 Units or More..........14

Table 7: 2011 Commercial, Industrial and Ofce Site Plans with 50,000 Sq. Ft. or more ...15



1

M

ost development applications thatcome before municipal planningboards and boards of adjustment inMorris County are forwarded to the

County for review. The New Jersey County Plan-ning Act provides for the review and approvalof many types of development applications bythe County Planning Board. All subdivision ap-plications must also be submitted to the Countyfor review and approval. In Morris County, mi-nor subdivisions, which do not front on Countyroads, are deemed exempt from formal review.In addition, all site plans which front on Countyroads and/or have impervious areas of one acreor more must be submitted to the County for re-

view and approval. Site plans of less than one acreof impervious area are deemed exempt from for-mal review if they do not front on a County road.

The Land Development Review Section of theMorris County Planning Board is responsible forreviewing all development applications, whichconsist of subdivision plans and site plans sub-mitted to th e Morris County Planning Board forapproval. The Land Development Review Com-mittee meets at least once a month, depending onthe volume of applications, to review the develop-

ment applications processed by the staff. At eachregularly scheduled monthly County PlanningBoard meeting, the full Board votes on the “Reportof Actions Taken on Development Plans”, whichcontains the recommendations of the Committee,as well as a complete summary of all developmentactivity processed through the ofce each month.

Sketch

A sketch represents a conceptual layout of a sub-division or site plan. Submission of sketches

while not required by all municipalities, are help-ful to the County review process by providing apreview of formal plans that are likely to be sub-mitted in the future. They also provide an op-portunity for possible design changes to be sug-gested before detailed engineering is undertaken

Preliminary Plat

Preliminary plat is a set of detailed drawingsshowing lot lines, road alignments, dimensionscontours, drainage systems, water lines, sanitary

sewers and other details as applicable. Approvalof the preliminary plat is a prelude to construction

Final Plat

A nal plat follows the preliminary plat approvaland becomes a legal record of the subdivision. Itis a map of the subdivision which shows the exactdimension and direction of each lot line. The ap-proved nal plat is led at the Ofce of the CountyClerk where it remains a permanent legal record

The lots can be sold after recording. There can bea delay of up to two or more years from the timeof municipal and County approval and the actualling of the plat at the Ofce of the County Clerk

Minor Subdivision Plat

A minor subdivision plat is generally dened ashaving no more than three to ve lots and whichdoes not require an extension of municipal facili-ties such as roads, public water or sewer services

Site Plan

A site plan is the construction drawing forthe development and improvement of onelot or parcel, usually for single uses as of-ce, retail store or higher intensity residential

Introduction



2

DEVELOPMENT TRENDS

Single Family HousingSubdivisions

After nal subdivision approval, nal plats areled at the Ofce of the County Clerk where theproperty descriptions become a permanent legalrecord. The lots can be sold after recording. Therecan be a delay of up to two or more years from thetime of municipal and County approval and theactual ling of the plat at the Ofce of the CountyClerk. Table IV (Section II) provides a ve year

record of nal plats recorded for each municipal-ity. Seventy-one (71) lots were led at the Ofceof the County Clerk during 2011, a 65% increasefrom the number of lots recorded in 2010. Mostwere small residential subdivisions consisting of3 to 31 lots that occurred as inll development inestablished neighborhoods in nine municipalities.

Table V (Section II) notes two residential sub-divisions of 20 lots or more were reviewed in2011. Fairway View Estates subdivision in Den-ville Township (31 lots) and the Forest Hills (20lots) subdivision in Hanover Township contrib-uted the majority of single family home lots.

Attached and Multi-Family

Housing Site Plans

Of the six new residential site plans reviewed bythe Morris County Planning Board, three weresizeable projects containing 100 or more units. Twoprojects are located in the Township of Rockaway

and one is located in the Borough of Wharton.

Avalon Bay Communities, Inc. proposes a 248unit apartment project on 8.58 acres at East Dew-ey Avenue in the Borough of Wharton. The proj-ect will consist of a large four-story building,which will house all of the units, a 500 space ve-story parking garage and related site improve-ments. Presently, the site is vacant and containsthe remains of the Bull Frog Meadow Iron Mine.

In the Township of Rockaway, the Morris Com-mons project proposes 362 units (204 town-house units and 158 apartment units) on two

vacant parcels totaling 45.18 acres within anexisting industrial park. The project is locat-ed on Commons Way off Green Pond Road.

The second project in Rockaway Township, Village atRockaway, proposes 188 townhome units. This projectis located off Green Pond Road on a 51.6 acre parcel.

This development was originally approvedas an age restricted development and hassubsequently had that restriction removed.

As in previous years, growth in the age-restrict-

ed adult (55 and older) housing sector was mini-mal. In Pequannock Township, the PequannockSenior Citizens Housing Corporation proposeda 35 unit expansion to Hearle Village. Hearle Vil-lage is a senior citizen apartment complex locat-ed on the Boulevard. Renovations are also pro-posed for the complex’s social/community center.

As illustrated in Chart D and also in Table II (Sec-tion II), there was a 300% increase in the numberof units proposed in site plans in 2011 comparedto 2010. Current consumer trends favor rental units

more than condo/ownership units in multi-fami-ly buildings. The County Planning Board expectscontinued growth in this market due to the contin-ued fallout from the housing mortgage crisis andscarcity of developable land for large-scale single-family subdivisions. Redevelopment of vacant andunder utilized nonresidential properties and olderhousing stock into multifamily housing is a trendthat will continue as the economy strengthens.

Commercial, Industrial, and

Office Site Plans

Site plans submitted to the Morris County PlanningBoard can range from small building additions witha minimal amount of new oor area to new ofcebuildings, regional retail facilities, and industrialwarehouses with several hundred thousand squarefeet or more of oor area. Industrial site plans, as arule, provide larger buildings than do commercialor ofce, especially those that include warehouse

A Closer Look



3

facilities. Table VII (Section II) provides a list of themore signicant site plans of non-residential de-velopment with new oor area. Only site plans of50,000 square feet and greater are included in Ta-ble VII. The current condition of the economy andrelatively high vacancy rate has continued to limitthe number of projects greater than 50,000 sq. ft.

New non-residential development continued

to be stagnant in 2011. The amount of oor areafrom new non-residential site plans (Table IISection II) in 2011 is 385,578 square feet. Futuregrowth in this sector will depend on nancialmarkets recovering to fund new projects; on theavailability of developable and redevelopableproperty; and, more importantly, a reduction inthe supply of vacant ofce and industrial space.

Morris County leads the Northern New Jersey of-ce market with 28,818,455 square feet of ofcespace (Cushman & Wakeeld, Marketbeat Ofce

Snapshot, Northern New Jersey, Q4 2011). Thechart below shows the slight uctuation in vacancyrates in Class A and all classes of ofce space for thepast three years. For 2011, the overall vacancy ratefor Class A ofce space uctuated between 26.8%and approximately 28%. The overall vacancy rateof all classes of ofce space is 24.6%. Between 2010and 2011 the vacancy rate for Class A ofce spaceincreased by approximately 2.5% and the vacancyrate for all classes of ofce space increased by 2.8%.

Morris County ranks sixth in total square feet of

industrial space in the Northern & Central New Jersey industrial market with 42,840,231 squarefeet of industrial space (Cushman & Wakeeld,Marketbeat Industrial Snapshot, Northern New Jersey, Q4 2011)). The overall vacancy rate forindustrial space was 14.4%. Out of the 10 coun-ties in the market area, Morris County has thesecond highest vacancy rate of industrial space.

The vacancy rate of ofce space is expected todiminish as older buildings are refurbished andthe economy improves. Morris County’s prox-

imity to New York City, highway and rail ac-cess, proximity to three major airports, availablehousing stock and skilled labor force will con-tinue to attract leading businesses to the county.

Given the highly educated workforce residing inMorris County and global competition, the likeli-hood of traditional manufacturing and industrialuses reoccupying all the vacant industrial spaceis unlikely. The current trend to convert former in-dustrial properties into a non-industrial use (retail,

commercial, multi-family housing etc.) will contin-ue. The loss of industrial properties is not unique toMorris County, which reects the national loss ofthe manufacturing sector. The location and desir-ability of Morris County have enabled the success-ful redevelopment of these sites into other uses

In Hanover Township, “Hanover at Horsehill” is aredevelopment project that will transform two va-

cant industrial properties into a shopping complexthat includes a 3,000 square foot bank, 10,000 squarefoot multi-tenant retail building, and an 80,048square foot Shoprite supermarket. This project islocated at the intersection of Horsehill Road andEast Hanover Avenue. The previous uses on the sitewere a heating oil distributor and plastics fabricator

Also along East Hanover Avenue at the northwestcorner of the intersection with Ridgedale Avenue,is the former Berlex Industrial property. The Mor-ris County Planning Board anticipates receiving a

site plan application for the redevelopment of thisproperty this year (2012). Township ofcials andpotential applicants have indicated that a “big box”retail use and possible accessory retail uses (bank,pharmacy, etc.) totaling approximately 100,000square feet may be proposed for the +/-12 acre site

Noting the number of proposed and potential re-development projects along East Hanover Av-enue, the County recognized the need for a co-ordinated approach to improvements along theheavily travelled roadway from Speedwell Av-

enue to Whippany Road. With assistance by theNew Jersey Department of Transportation, theCounty is preparing a corridor study with inputby the three municipalities along the corridor: Bor-ough of Morris Plains, Township of Hanover andthe Township of Morris. The purpose of the cor-ridor study is to project the future growth alongthe corridor and determine mitigation measuresto improve the trafc ow throughout the area

Another large project in the Township of Hanoveris the redevelopment of the 194-acre former Alca-

tel/Lucent property. Phase one and two will rede-velop 94 acres of the site with 845,000 square feetof ofce space, parking areas and related site im-provements for Bayer Healthcare, which is consoli-dating its East Coast operations. At this time, it isuncertain whether the remaining 100 acres of thesite will be redeveloped into ofce use or a mix ofmulti-family housing and commercial uses. (Thisproject was submitted in 2012 and developmentdetail will be provided in the 2012 Annual Report)



4

As was mentioned in the 2010 annual report, Hon-eywell is also proposing to redevelop its campusin the Township of Morris. Alternatives for thisredevelopment include between 840,000 – 900,000square feet of ofce/lab space along with residen-tial and limited retail uses. Currently, the MorrisTownship Planning Board is considering amend-ments to its master plan (Land Use element andCirculation Element) to allow a planned mixed-usedevelopment in the current OB-40 zone. It is antic-ipated that a variation of one of the presented alter-natives mentioned in the 2010 Annual Report willbe submitted to the County for review in late 2012.



5

A combined total of 279 subdivision plats andsite plans (including revisions) were submitted tothe Morris County Planning Board for review in2011. Of those applications submitted, the Mor-

ris County Planning Board reviewed and issuedreports on 169 applications. Another 110 appli-cations received cursory review, but were ex-empt from formal County review and approval.

REVISED SUBMISSIONS

A signicant portion of the development appli-cations submitted to the Morris County PlanningBoard consists of resubmissions of revised draw-ings in response to municipal and county reviews.

Often, development applications continue intothe following year. Table III (Section II) providesinformation on those development applicationscontinued from prior calendar years. Those devel-opment applications are only counted as new sub-division plats and site plans in the year they wererst submitted to the Morris County PlanningBoard for review. The date when construction willactually occur is difcult to predict since econom-ic and market conditions will vary the outcome.

By counting both new and revised development

applications, trends in development activity can bebetter determined. The strength of the economy canbe directly correlated to the number of submissions.Generally, when the economy is in an upswing, thereis an increase in submissions. In addition, as a pre-cursor to an upswing in the economy, there is alsoan increase in the number of revised submissions.

Section II of this report contains Tables I throughVII, which present specic development infor-mation for Morris County’s 39 municipalities.Within Section I, Charts A through G are based

on those tables and show development activityfor 2011 compared with the previous nine years.The observations and comments offered in Sec-tion I make frequent reference to the tables ofSection II as well as the charts contained herein.

Table III (Section II) shows 11 revised preliminarysubdivision plats (residential and non-residential)totaling 78 building lots were resubmitted fromprevious calendar years. Eight (8) revised residen-

Development Data

tial site plans totaling 716 units were resubmit-ted in 2011. In addition, 43 revised site plans fornon-residential development totaling 1,342,582square feet of oor area were resubmitted in 2011

NEW SUBMISSIONS

380

432

376

342362

308279

256

196

169

0

100

200

300

400

500

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Total Submissions Reviewed by the

MCPB, 2002 through 2011

Chart A – Total Submissions Reviewed

The total number of submissions reviewed in 2011is depicted in Chart A above. Table 1 (Section II)provides a breakdown of the subdivision and siteplans reviewed by municipality. The recessionand mortgage lending crisis is directly responsi-

ble for the downward growth trend illustrated inChart A. As banks and other nancial institutionsbegin to ease restrictions on lending (mortgagesconstruction loans, etc.), the trend should reverse

The County Planning Board reviewed 19 prelimi-nary plats and 17 nal plats (including revisions)in 2011. The number of minor subdivisions (in-cluding revisions) totaled 20 for 2011. These minorsubdivisions included residential, institutionalcommercial and industrial uses, lot line changesand open space preservation parcels. Thirty (30)

minor subdivisions not affecting County roadsor County drainage facilities were deemed ex-empt from formal review. By contrast in 2010, 16minor subdivisions were reviewed and 24 minorsubdivisions were exempted from formal review

In 2011, the County Planning Board reviewed 113site plans (including revisions). These projects ei-ther front along County roads or consist of at leastone acre of new impervious surface. Site plansfor projects not fronting along County roads that



6

do not meet the one acre of new impervious sur-face criteria are deemed exempt from formal re-view. The County Planning Board received eighty(80) site plans that were exempt from review.

45 43

2926

29

1916

7 6 5

0

10

20

30

40

50

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Total New Subdivision Plats Reviewed by the

MCPB,

2002 through 2011

Chart B – Total New Subdivision Plats

As seen in Chart B, the total number of new resi-

dential subdivision plats submitted in 2011 wasnearly the same as in 2010. Residential activity stillremained stagnant for 2011. New development ac-tivity for the year is presented in Table II (SectionII). The County Planning Board received ve newpreliminary subdivision plats for 27 lots comparedto 6 new preliminary plats for 24 lots submitted in2010. This low number of new preliminary subdi-vision plats is primarily due to the ongoing re-cession and the scarcity of developable property.

329

484

283

191

144 137

77

256

24 27

0

100

200

300

400

500

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Number of New Residential Building Lots

from New Subdivision Plats Reviewed,2002 through 2011

Chart C – Number of New Residential Building Lots

The number of new residential building lots is thesum of all proposed lots from newly received majorsubdivisions. The major subdivisions are dispersedin municipalities throughout the county. The num-ber of lots varied for each subdivision. For 2011,the Borough of Netcong had the largest amountof proposed lots (8). Due to the unavailability oflarge tracts of land, the trend of having (12) or few-

er lots per subdivision is expected to continue. Asseen in Chart C, there is an increase in the num-ber of residential lots (27) as compared to 2010.

2,297

1,121

755934

1,345

388 427243 298

895

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Townhouses & Multi-Family Units from

New Site Plans Reviewed by the MCPB,

2002 through 2011

Chart D – Townhouses & Multi-Family Units From

New Site Plans

Site plans for apartments, townhouses, and age-

restricted adult housing were submitted to theCounty Planning Board for review in 2011. TableII (Section II) shows that a total of six new residen-tial site plans for 895 dwelling units were submit-ted during 2011 compared to six new residentialsite plans for 298 dwelling units submitted in 2010.Growth is expected to continue as the housingmarket works its way out of the recession. Basedon current consumer trends, developers are sub-mitting applications for multi-family rental unitsrather than condominium (ownership) units.

125117

103

122

85 91 8881

6859

0

25

50

75

100

125

150

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

New Site Plans Reviewed by theMCPB, 2002 through 2011

(does not include residential site plans)

Chart E – New Nonresidential Site Plans

As seen in Chart E, the total number of new non-residential site plans submitted in 2011 decreasedfrom 2010. New development activity for the yearis presented in Table II (Section II). The MorrisCounty Planning Board received 59 new non-resi-dential site plans in 2011 compared to 68 in 2010.



7

2.923.14

2.92

2.24

1.761.54

1.371.20

1.63

0.38

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Amount of New Floor Area from New

Non-Residential Site Plans Reviewed,

MCPB, 2002 through 2011

Chart F – New Floor Area from Nonresidential Site

Plans

As seen in Chart F, there was a decrease of pro-posed non-residential oor area in 2011. A reversalfrom this low of 385,578 square feet will dependon availability of developable land; redevelop-ment of existing properties; reduction in existingofce vacancy rates; and strengthening of nancialmarkets to provide funding for new development.

544

437

767

257

124 152105

33 4371

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Number of Single Family House Lots from

Major Subdivisions Recorded at the Office of

the Morris County Clerk, 2002 through 2011

Chart G – Number of Recorded Single Family

House Lots From Major Subdivisions

The number of single family house lots from major subdivisions recorded at the Ofce of the Mor-ris County Clerk, 2002 through 2011 is depicted inChart G. As is shown in Chart G, there has been a65% increase in recorded single family house lots

from 2010. The increase in recordings suggests thatthe housing market is beginning a slow rebound.



8

Section II



9

Table I2011 Number of Plats Reviewed, Morris County Planning Board

New/Revised/Total

Municipality PreliminarySubdivision

Final Subdivision MinorSubdivision

Site Plan

Boonton - - - 3/0/3Boonton Twp. 1/0/1 1/1/2 - -Butler - - - 2/0/2Chatham - - 1/0/1 1/0/1Chatham Twp. 1/0/1 1/0/1 0/1/1 0/1/1Chester - - - 1/1/2Chester Twp. - - - -Denville 0/1/1 0/1/1 - -Dover - - - 1/1/2East Hanover - - - 3/6/9Florham Park 1/0/1 1/0/1 - 6/2/8

Hanover 0/3/3 2/3/5 3/3/6 4/5/9Harding 0/4/4 0/4/4 - -

Jefferson 0/1/1 0/1/1 - 1/1/2Kinnelon - - 1/0/1 1/1/2Lincoln Park - - - 0/1/1Long Hill - - 1/0/1 -Madison - - - 0/1/1Mendham - - - 1/1/2Mendham Twp. 1/0/1 1/0/1 - -Mine Hill 0/1/1 - - 0/1/1Montville - - - 4/9/13Morris Twp. 1/1/2 - 0/1/1 3/1/4Morris Plains 0/1/1 1/0/1 1/0/1 1/2/3Morristown - - - 2/2/4

Mountain Lakes - - - -Mt. Arlington - - - 1/0/1Mt. Olive - - 1/0/1 0/1/1Netcong 1/0/1 - - -Par-Troy - - 0/1/1 4/3/7Pequannock - - 1/1/2 2/1/3Randolph - - 1/1/2 8/3/11Riverdale - - - 1/0/1Rockaway - - - 1/0/1Rockaway Twp. - - - 6/3/9Roxbury 0/1/1 - - 2/2/4Victory Gardens - - - -Washington - - 1/1/2 2/0/2Wharton - - - 1/2/3

Total 6/13/19 7/10/17 11/9/20 62/51/113

New Submissions = 86Revised Submissions = 83Total Submissions = 169

In addition, 110 minor subdivision plats and site plans not fronting on County Roads were reviewed and exempted.



10

MunicipalitySubdivisions (1)

Residential(Plats/Lots)

Subdivisions (1)Non-Residential

(Plats/Lots)

Site PlansResidential

(Plans/Units)

Site Plans (2)Non Residential

(Plans/Sq.Ft.)

Boonton - - - 3/1,727Boonton Twp. 1/3 - - -

Butler - - - 2/11,040

Chatham - - - 1/0

Chatham Twp. 1/7 - - -

Chester - - - 1/1,382

Chester Twp. - - - -

Denville - - - -

Dover - - 1/2 -

East Hanover - - - 3/5,700

Florham Park - 1/1 - 5/17,169

Hanover - - 1/60 3/149,516Harding - - - -

Jefferson - - - 1/0

Kinnelon - - - 1/0

Lincoln Park - - - -

Long Hill - - - -

Madison - - - -

Mendham - - - -

Mendham Twp. 1/5 - - -

Mine Hill - - - -

Montville - - - 4/5,229

Morris Twp. 1/4 - - 3/0

Morris Plains - - - 1/640

Morristown - - - 2/0

Mountain Lakes - - - -

Mt. Arlington - - - 1/0

Mt. Olive - - - -

Netcong 1/8 - - -

Par-Troy - - - 4/50,119

Pequannock - - 1/35 1/8,904

Randolph - - - 8/49,910

Riverdale - - - 1/6,325

Rockaway - - - 1/6,120

Rockaway Twp. - - 2/550 4/71,012

Roxbury - - - 2/128

Victory Gardens - - - -

Washington - - - 2/657

Wharton - - 1/248 -

Total 5/27 1/1 6/895 54/385,578

Table II2011 New Submissions, Morris County Planning Board

(1) Major subdivisions (Preliminary Plats)(2) Includes some site plans for building additions or renovations where no new oor area is being added.



11

MunicipalitySubdivisions (2)

Residential(Plats/Lots)

Subdivisions (2)Non-Residential

(Plats/Lots)

Site PlansResidential

(Plans/Units)

Site Plans (3)Non Residential

(Plans/Sq.Ft.)

Boonton - - - -

Boonton Twp. - - - -

Butler - - - -

Chatham - - - -

Chatham Twp. - - - 1/15,250

Chester - - - 1/0

Chester Twp. - - - -

Denville 1/31 - - -

Dover - - - 1/600

East Hanover - - - 6/704,987

Florham Park - - 1/116 1/130,000

Hanover 3/12 - 1/124 4/150,334Harding 4/18 - - -

Jefferson - 1/3 - 1/5,341

Kinnelon - - - 1/4,000

Lincoln Park - - - 1/0

Long Hill - - - -

Madison - - - 1/55,000

Mendham - - - 1/7,916

Mendham Twp. - - - -

Mine Hill - 1/3 - 1/11,250

Montville - - 2/43 7/24,803

Morris Twp. 1/4 - 1/92 -Morris Plains 1/1 - 1/70 1/15,200

Morristown - - 1/23 1/0

Mountain Lakes - - - -

Mt. Arlington - - - -

Mt. Olive - - - 1/12,900

Netcong - - - -

Par-Troy - - - 3/31,824

Pequannock - - - 1/8,904

Randolph - - - 3/63,929

Riverdale - - - -

Rockaway - - - -Rockaway Twp. - - - 3/96

Roxbury 1/12 - - 2/75,128

Victory Gardens - - - -

Washington - - - -

Wharton - - 1/248 1/25,120

Total 11/78 2/6 8/716 43/1,342,582

Table III2011, Revised Submissions (1), Morris County Planning Board

(1) Each development continued from prior calendar year(s).(2) Major subdivisions (Preliminary Plats)(3) Includes some site plans for building additions or renovations where no new oor area is being added.



12

Table IV2007-2011 Number of Single Family House Lots from Major

Subdivisions Recorded at the Office of the Morris County Clerk

Municipality 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 5 Year Total

Boonton - - 7 2 - 9

Boonton Twp. - - - 1 2 3

Butler - 8 3 - - 11

Chatham - - - - - -

Chatham Twp. 3 - - - - 3

Chester - - - - - -

Chester Twp. - - - - - -

Denville 5 10 3 - 29 47

Dover 3 - - - - 3

East Hanover 3 - - - - 3

Florham Park - - - - - -Hanover 16 1 5 3 23 48

Harding - 4 - 13 - 17

Jefferson - - - - - -

Kinnelon - - - - - -

Lincoln Park - - - - - -

Long Hill 1 - 6 - - 7

Madison - 4 - - - 4

Mendham - - - - - -

Mendham Twp. 12 2 - 3 - 17

Mine Hill 5 - - - - 5

Montville 11 2 7 6 - 26

Morris Twp. - 3 - 4 - 7

Morris Plains - - - - - -

Morristown - - - - - -

Mountain Lakes - 4 - - - 4

Mt. Arlington - 11 - - - 11

Mt. Olive - 56 - - - 56

Netcong - - - - - -

Par-Troy 7 - 2 7 - 16

Pequannock - - - 3 - 3

Randolph 6 - - - 17 23Riverdale - - - - - -

Rockaway - - - - - -

Rockaway Twp. 8 - - - - 8

Roxbury 3 - - - - 3

Victory Gardens - - - - - -

Washington 69 - - - - 69

Wharton - - - - - -

Total 152 105 33 42 71 403



13

Table V2011 Preliminary Single Family Residential Subdivisions Plats

Reviewed by Morris County Planning Board

Municipality Development Name Location Total Lots

Boonton Twsp. Sutters Estates (Phase 3) Decker Ln. 3

Denville Fairway View Estates Old Boonton Rd. 31

Hanover Carleid Fairchild Pl. 5

Hanover Forest Hills (Phase 3) Troy Hills Rd. 20

Harding Morris Post & Rail Van Beuren Rd. 4

Morris Twsp. Van Beuren Estates Van Beuren Rd. 4

Roxbury Tower Hill Hillside Ave. 12



14

Table VI2011 Proposed Townhouse & Multi-Family Site Plans of 20 Units or

More Reviewed by Morris County Planning Board

Municipality Development Name LocationNumberof Units

Florham Park Sun Valley Plaza Passaic Ave. 116

Hanover Lakeview at Hanover American Rd. 124

Hanover Waterview at Hanover American Rd. 60

Montville Briar Hill at Montville Vreeland Ave. 37

Morris Township Paragon Park James St. 92

Morris Plains Coventry Park at Morris Plains Littleton Rd. 70

Morristown Ridgedale Commons Ridgedale Ave. 23

Pequannock Hearle Village Boulevard 35

Rockaway Township Morris Commons Mt. Hope Rd. 362

Rockaway Township Village at Rockaway Green Pond Rd. 188



Table VII2011 Commercial, Industrial and Office Site Plans

With 50,000 Sq. Ft. or More of New Floor Area

Reviewed by Morris County Planning Board

Municipality Development Name Location Land Use New Sq. Ft.

East Hanover Novartis East Village Ridgedale Ave. Ofce 695,757

Florham Park Green at Florham Park (Bldg 2) Park Ave. Ofce 130,000

Hanover Care One at Crestwood Whippany Rd. Institutional 50,972

Hanover Hanover & Horsehill Devel. Hanover Ave. Commercial 93,048

Madison 175 Park Ave. Park Ave. Ofce 55,000

Roxbury LaRoy Self Storage Shippenport Rd. Industrial 75,000

2011 development activity report

Documents