Development Activity Report 2010

8/7/2019 Development Activity Report 2010

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/development-activity-report-2010 1/34



On the Cover

(FLANDERS, NJ & BALTIMORE, MD, December,

2010) — Benjamin Moore and Constellation Energyhave inaugurated a new solar power system thatis expected to generate 68 percent of the electricityneeds for Benjamin Moore’s 80,000 sq. ft. productdevelopment center and testing laboratories.

The solar power system at the company’s Flanders,NJ, R&D facility comprises 8,600 crystalline pho-tovoltaic solar panels, making it one of the largeston-site solar power systems in the state. The systemis expected to begin producing electricity by year’send.

Benjamin Moore & Co., a Berkshire Hathaway com-pany (NYSE:BRK.A), teamed with the retail divisionof Constellation Energy (NYSE: CEG) to develop the1.7-megawatt system. Under a 20-year solar powerpurchase agreement, Benjamin Moore is providingthe land and will purchase all of the electricity fromthe solar panels. Constellation Energy will build,own and maintain the system.

“Benjamin Moore proudly wears the mantle of prod-uct innovator while embracing a stringent commit-ment to our planet—working diligently to ensurethat our products and operations minimally impactthe environment,” said Denis Abrams, chairman,president and CEO of Benjamin Moore & Co. “Nowwe are embracing a commitment to renewableenergy through our joint endeavor with Constella-tion Energy. We know that no one action or com-pany will create the single solution to our energyneeds. But this installation by Constellation Energyfor Benjamin Moore, on our property, contributesto the overall global solution of sustainable energyresources that are sorely needed.”

The long-term solar power purchase agreement

structure enables Benjamin Moore to undertake re-newable energy generation with no upfront capitalexpenditure. Depending on conditions, the system isexpected to produce nearly 2,230,000 kilowatt hoursof electricity each year, enough to supply 68 percentof the electricity of the facility. Benjamin Moore andConstellation Energy are also exploring new energyconservation measures at the Flanders site to furtherreduce the facility’s overall electricity usage so thatit can rely almost exclusively on the power gener-ated by the solar array.

“Constellation Energy is a national leader in bring-

ing innovative and cost-effective renewable energysolutions directly to commercial customers,” saidMichael D. Smith, senior vice president of greeninitiatives for Constellation Energy’s retail business.“To make this work you need the vision, expertise,and commitment of companies like Benjamin Mooreand Constellation Energy, combined with publicsupport and the commitment of state, federal andlocal government leaders. Moving to a sustainableenergy future is a shared effort, and we’re proud tohelp in the expansion of solar energy in the U.S.”

The project is the first of its kind to be located inthe New Jersey Highlands region under a recentlyenacted state law. Constellation Energy and Ben-

jamin Moore worked closely with state and com-munity authorities to ensure that the solar installa-tion fully met the open space and water drainagerequirements of the Highlands Water Protection andPlanning Act of 2004 which needed to be amendedto accommodate this project. The system designwas adjusted to shift more than 1,500 photovoltaicpanels from an open field on the property to a newlyinstalled roof structure over the facility’s existingparking lot. The final design preserves more open

space on Benjamin Moore’s land while providingshade for parked vehicles. The parking structurewill also include recharging stations for electricvehicles.

Constellation Energy estimates that using non-renewable sources to generate the same amount ofelectricity expected to be produced by the new solarinstallation would result in the release of more than1,600 metric tons of carbon dioxide, a greenhousegas, or the equivalent emissions from more than 300passenger vehicles annually. The system is the latest

example of Benjamin Moore’s commitment to sus-tainability, which includes delivering safer, sustain-able products to its customers.

Press Contacts:

For Benjamin MooreEileen McCombDirector of Communications, Benjamin Moore(201) [email protected]

Benjamin Moore To Power NJ-Based R&D Center With Solar InstallationDeveloped by Constellation Energy



2011Board of Chosen FreeholdersWilliam J. Chegwidden, Director

Douglas R. Cabana, Deputy Director

Gene F. Feyl

Ann F. GrossiThomas J. Mastrangelo

John J. Murphy

Margaret Nordstrom

County Administrator John Bonanni

Morris County Department ofPlanning & Development

Frank T. Pinto, Jr., 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

Barry Marell, Attorney

Land Development Review StaffArne Goytil, P.P., Assistant Planning Director

Gregory Perry, P.P., Supervising Planner

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

Lauren Thomas, Data Control Clerk

Gene Cass, Supervising Cartographer

Carol Morgan, Principal Planning Technician



Table of Contents

Section 1 Page

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

General Trends ...................................................................................................................................3

Residential Subdivisions .............................................................................................................3

Multi-Family ...............................................................................................................................3

Non-Residential...........................................................................................................................4

Redevelopment Trends ................................................................................................................4

Development in the Highlands Region .......................................................................................6

Development Data ..............................................................................................................................8

Revised Submissions ...................................................................................................................8

New Submissions ........................................................................................................................8

A Closer Look ..................................................................................................................................11

Single Family Housing ..............................................................................................................11

Attached and Multi-Family Housing ........................................................................................12

Commercial, Industrial and Of fice ............................................................................................12

Charts

Chart A: Total Submissions Reviewed, 2001-2010 ............................................................................8

Chart B: New Subdivision Plats Reviewed, 2001-2010 ....................................................................9

Chart C: Number of New Residential Building Lots from

Subdivision Plats, 2001-2010 .............................................................................................9

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

Plans Reviewed, 2001-2010 ...............................................................................................9

Chart E: New Site Plans Reviewed, 2001-2010 ...............................................................................10

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

Site Plans Reviewed, 2001-2010 ......................................................................................10

Chart G: Single Family Building Lots from Major Subdivisions

Recorded at the Morris County Clerk’s Of fice, 2001-2010 .............................................11



Section II Page

Tables

Table 1: 2010 Number of Plats Reviewed ........................................................................................17

Table 2: 2010 New Submissions ......................................................................................................18

Table 3: 2010 Revised Submissions .................................................................................................19

Table 4: 2010 Final Plats Approved - Residential

detached Dwelling Units ..................................................................................................20

Table 5: 2006-2010 Number of Single Family House

Lots from Major Subdivisions ..........................................................................................21

Table 6: 2010 Proposed Single Family ResidentialSubdivision - Plats of 20 Lots or More ............................................................................22

Table 7: 2010 Proposed Townhouse & Multi-Family Site Plans .....................................................23

Table 8: 2010 Commercial, Industrial and Of fice Site Plans

with 50,000 Sq. Ft. or More of New Floor Area ..............................................................24

Maps

Map A: 2010 Number of Single Family House Lots

from Major Subdivisions ..................................................................................................25

Map B: 2006-2010 Total Number of Single Family

House Lots from Major Subdivisions ..............................................................................26

Map C: New Jersey Highlands within Morris County .....................................................................27



Section I



1

M

ost development applications pre-sented to municipal planning boardsand boards of adjustment in MorrisCounty are forwarded to the County

for review.

The New Jersey County Planning Act providesfor the review and approval of many types ofdevelopment applications by the County Plan-ning Board. All subdivision applications mustalso be submitted to the County for review andapproval. In Morris County, minor subdivisions,which do not front on County roads, are deemedexempt from formal review. In addition, all siteplans which front on County roads and/or haveimpervious areas of one acre or more must also be

submitted to the County for review and approval.Site plans of less than one acre of impervious areaare deemed exempt from formal review if they donot front on a County road.

The Land Development Review Section of theMorris County Planning Board is staffed by threeplanners and one data control clerk. The officehandles all development applications which con-sist of subdivision plans and site plans submittedto the Morris County Planning Board for reviewand approval.

The Land Development Review Committee meetsat least once a month, depending on the volumeof applications, to review the development appli-cations processed by the staff. At each regularlyscheduled monthly County Planning Board meet-ing, the full Board votes on the “Report of ActionsTaken on Development Plans”, which containsrecommendations of the Committee, as well asa complete summary of all development activityprocessed through the office each month.

Sketch

A sketch represents a conceptual layout of asubdivision or site plan. Submissions 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 oppor-tunity for possible design changes to be suggestedbefore detailed engineering is undertaken.

Preliminary Plat

A preliminary plat is a set of detailed drawingsshowing lot lines, road alignments, dimensions,contours, drainage systems, water lines, sanitary

sewers and other details as applicable. Approvalof the preliminary plat is a prelude to construc-tion.

Final Plat

A final plat follows the preliminary plat approvaland becomes a legal record of the subdivision.It is a map of the subdivision which shows theexact dimension and direction of each lot line.The approved final plat is filed at the Office of the

County Clerk where it remains a permanent legalrecord.

Minor Subdivision Plat

A minor subdivision plat is generally defined ashaving no more than three to five 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 for the de-velopment and improvement of one lot or parcel.

Introduction



2



3

O

f the 344 subdivision and site plan ap-plications (including revisions) sub-mitted to the Morris County Planning

Board in 2010, 196 were reviewed forthe first time which is much lower than the 256reviews processed in 2009. New submissions overa period of years are reliable indicators of growthor decline in land development activity. Aftertwo years of growth starting in 2002, there hasbeen a slow decline in new development applica-tions from 2004 to 2010, despite fluctuations inthe economy. Factors contributing to the declinein 2010 are the current state of the economy; thediminishing availability of developable vacantland (5.5% or 10,320 acres remain outside the

Highlands Preservation area); and expansion ofenvironmental and land use restrictions, i.e. High-lands Act.

Residential Subdivisions

In 2010, only six new residential subdivision ap-plications, totaling 24 lots, were submitted to theMorris County Planning Board. Each applicationproposed five or fewer lots and occurred as infilldevelopment in established neighborhoods in

the Town of Boonton (1) Hanover Township (1),Harding Township (2) and Pequannock Township(2). All the new subdivision activity was locatedin the Highlands Planning Area.

Since 2004, newresidential subdi-visions have beenpredominately smallin size compared tolarge tract develop-ments submitted

in prior years. Thesmall number ofnew subdivisions in2010 is a record lowfor Morris County, which can be attributed to thecurrent economic climate.

There was also less minor subdivision activitythan the year before. In 2009, 51 minor subdivi-sion applications (includes those exempted) were

received, while 2010 produced a total of 32. Sincethe downturn in the housing market in 2007, therehas been more minor subdivisions compared to

major residential subdivisions.

Multi–Family

In the multi–family housing sector, which in-cludes apartments, townhouses, age-restrictedand senior and assisted living housing, there wasan 82% increase in the number of dwelling unitsproposed from the prior year. The six develop-ments (Section 2, Table 7) contributing to thisupswing were located in built-up communities

in eastern central Morris County. The number ofunits proposed ranged from 24 to 75 units. Therewas no new activity in assisted living projects in2010.

From a post recession high of 2,297 units in 2002,there was a steep decline to 1,121 units and 755units in 2003 and 2004 respectively. Beginning in2004, multi-family residential increased steadilyuntil 2006, fueled by growth in age-restricted andtownhouse developments. A weakening housingmarket in 2007 resulted in a 71% drop in the num-

ber of proposed multi-family dwellings from theyear before. Although there was a slight rise inthe number of proposed units in 2008, the weak-ened economy saw a 43% drop in the number ofproposed units in 2009. This downward trend wasreversed in 2010 with an 82% increase in multi-family units. Further improvement in this housingsector is anticipated as the economy strengthens.

Reflecting another change in housing marketconditions is the conversion of previously ap-proved age-restricted housing projects to non-age

restricted market rate units due to poor sales. Anexample of this change is the Signature Place atMorris Plains development proposed on LittletonRoad in the Borough of Morris Plains. In 2005,the developer received approval to construct twothree-story buildings for 86 age-restricted condo-minium units, but construction was delayed dueto economic conditions and the lack of marketdemand for age-restricted housing. In 2010, this4.86 acre site was rezoned for 70 non age-restrict-

General Trends



4

ed market rate townhouse units under the nameCoventry Park at Morris Plains. In 2009, the firstdevelopments to convert were Riverdale Cross-ing (200 apartments) located on Riverdale Roadin the Borough of Riverdale and Wheatsheaf (23townhouses) located on Deborah Drive/KahdenaRoad in Morris Township. This trend is expectedto continue as long as there is an over-supply ofapproved age-restricted housing projects.

Non-Residential

New non-residential development, which in-cludes office, commercial, industrial and insti-tutional uses, was very sluggish in 2010. Theamount of floor area from new non-residentialsite plans has declined steadily (Chart F, SectionOne) from a high of 3.14 million square feet in2003 to the current adjusted level of 1.03 million

square feet (Table II Section II), which is less thanthe 2001 recession level of 1.33 million squarefeet. Future growth in this sector will depend onfinancial markets recovering to fund new projects;on the availability of developable and redevelop-able property; and, more importantly, a reductionin the supply of vacant office space. According tothe Morris County Economic Development Cor-poration, Morris County leads the State in officespace inventory with approximately 28,503,994square feet (Cushman & Wakefield of New Jer-

sey). The chart below shows the slightfl

uctuationin vacancy rates for Class A and all classes ofoffice space for the past three years. For 2010, thevacancy rate for Class A office space was 25.5%and the overall vacancy rate of all classes of officespace was 21.8%.

20082009

2010

0

5

1 0

1 5

2 0

2 5

30

Class A

All Classes

In order to reduce the vacant inventory, existingoffice parks are upgrading their facilities and add-ing amenities to attract new tenants. An exampleis the pedestrian trail project site plan receivedfrom co-applicants KBS II 100/200 Campus Drive,LLC and KBS II 300/600 Campus Drive, LLC. Theproject consists of construction of approximately1.8 miles of proposed gravel trail along the perim-eter of the existing corporate campus located onCampus Drive off Park Avenue in the Boroughof Florham Park. The pedestrian trail providesconnections to existing sidewalks, parking lots,building entrances and an existing sitting areaand locates benches on the trail and gazebo ata central point. During a site inspection for theproject, County staff observed employees walkingfor recreation along the roads and parking lots ofthe campus. The proposed trail will provide a safelocation for employees of the campus to walk thatis separated from vehicular traffic.

Redevelopment Trends

An emerging trend to watch is the transforma-tion of existing campuses of major corporations asthey move to upgrade and consolidate corporatefunctions and and/or redevelop into mixed-usecampuses. For example, Novartis PharmaceuticalCorporation in East Hanover Township began amultiyear phased redevelopment of its 176 acre

U.S. headquarters campus in 2005. Phase I of EastVillage is complete. Phase II of East Village iscurrently under construction. These phases arediscussed in more detail in the “Commercial, In-dustrial and Office” section of this report. Futurephases are planned for West Village to completethe general development plan for the campus.

In 2004, Pfizer Inc., began Phase I of a multiyearphased redevelopment project for its 169 acrepharmaceutical office and research laboratorycampus on Route 53 in the Borough of Mor-

ris Plains. Phase I (east tract) expansion and thewidening of Route 53 to two lanes in each direc-tion were completed. Also, Pfizer contributed itspro rata share for NJDOT’s improvements to theRoute 10/Route 53 interchange which are cur-rently nearing completion. Phase II (west tract)expansion program has not started.

Late in 2010, Honeywell International approachedMorris Township officials about its general de-velopment plan for its 147 acre global headquar-Morris County Of fi ce Space Vacancy

%



5

ters campus located on Columbia Turnpike andPark Avenue. The two concept plans for the sitepropose mixed uses, which require a change inzoning since, at present, only offices and laborato-ries are permitted. Most of the existing buildingswould be demolished (610,000 sq. ft.) while twolarge buildings and one small building wouldbe renovated (540,000 sq. ft.). The first conceptproposal would involve a total of almost 900,000square feet of office/laboratory use, a 250 roomhotel and 313 townhouses and condominiumunits. The second concept proposal proposes a 415Continuing Care Retirement Community (CCRC),while retaining the 250 room hotel and reducingthe total number of residential units from 313 to 239and total office space to almost 840,000 square feet.

Another trend to watch is the continuing effortsof largely developed municipalities to revitalizetheir town centers and/or business districts inorder to increase their ratable base to improve taxrevenue for municipal services and to increaseemployment opportunities. For example, in Ha-nover Township, an Economic Advisory Commit-tee (EDAC) was established to facilitate growthin commercial real estate. Efforts are underway toattract developers to a number of vacant commer-cial properties in the Township. Also, the EDAC ischarged with expediting the development reviewprocess for those projects.

With the loss of several manufacturing businessesalong Hanover Avenue, Hanover Township alsoreexamined the existing industrial zoning alongthis major corridor and created the I-B3 Industrial,and Business District. As stated in Ordinance#22-2010, the purpose and intent of the I-B3zone district is to both preserve and enhance thepositive characteristics of the existing industrial,laboratory and office development pattern alongHanover Avenue, while providing redevelop-ment opportunities for large scale retail sales andservice development that provides coordinatedaccess, parking, and site design. While the Mor-

ris County Planning Board was supportive of thiszone change, it strongly recommended that theTownship engage in a comprehensive and uni-fied approach to traffic management to improveexisting traffic conditions and mitigate potentialtraffic impacts from redevelopment along the cor-ridor. This approach should include considerationof anticipated pedestrian access, not only fromHanover Township, but from existing residentialcommunities in adjacent Morris Township.

Hanover Township has taken a pro-active ap-proach for the redevelopment of vacant commer-cial properties. Other municipalities are expectedto follow similar approaches.

Lastly, an emerging trend throughout MorrisCounty is the use of ground mounted and roofmounted solar panels to supplement a portionof a site’s energy requirements. In Mount OliveTownship, Benjamin Moore and Company’s solarenergy farm on a 29 acre field adjacent to Mor-ris County’s High Bridge Branch Railroad hasbeen completed. This solar farm is featured onthe cover of this report. The Company has alsofinished constructing a solar photovoltaic projectwith electric vehicle charging station within theparking lot. These installations complete the mul-tiyear project to provide electricity for its researchand development facility located on the east side

of the County railroad at Route 206.



6

Similarly, in Harding Township, 1300 Mt. KembleAvenue Associates, LLC proposes the installationof a solar photovoltaic system on the rooftop of anexisting office building and over existing parkingareas, sewer disposal beds, and a large portion

of the existing detention basin. The site is locatedon Mt. Kemble Avenue (Route 202) north ofShalebrook Drive. On a smaller scale, ProgressiveProperties, Inc. located at 31 Fairmount Avenuein the Borough of Chester proposes to install solarpanels mounted on the rear portions of its build-ing.

Chatham Township is also considering a localdeveloper’s proposal for a solar energy farm atthe former Rolling Hills landfill site located inGreen Village. In 2010, the Township Committee

approved the designation of the 152 acre landfillas an “area in need of redevelopment.” The rede-velopment of closed landfills as solar farms willbecome more popular if a bill passed by the New Jersey Legislature on January 10, 2011 is signedinto law by the Governor. The bill would makesolar farms on landfills a permitted use in anymunicipality outside of the Pinelands.

The County of Morris is also supporting the useof solar as an alternative energy source. Throughits nationally recognized and innovative pilotrenewable energy program, the Morris Model, theMorris County Improvement Authority is assist-ing local school districts to provide solar system

installations for a number of middle schools andhigh schools and for County buildings.

Development Activity in the

Highlands Region

The enactment of the Highlands Water Protectionand Planning Act on August 10, 2004 has restrict-ed development activity in certain areas. In Mor-ris County, portions of 12 municipalities are in thePreservation Area, where conformance with the

Act and Regional Master Plan are mandatory andportions of 32 municipalities are in the PlanningArea, where compliance is voluntary. Only sevenmunicipalities in Morris County are outside of theHighlands Region. Map C (Section II) shows theNew Jersey Highlands Preservation and PlanningAreas within Morris County.

No new preliminary plats for subdivisions weresubmitted to the Morris County Planning Boardfor land in the Highlands Preservation Area. Theonly activity is resulting from preliminary plats

for subdivisions which received municipal ap-proval prior to March 29, 2004 or exempted by theNew Jersey Department of Environmental Protec-tion. Before the enactment of the Highlands Act,municipalities in the Highlands Preservation Areahad contributed the largest portion of approvedresidential units over the prior ten years. The ab-sence of new residential subdivision developmentin the Highlands Preservation Area, the diminish-ing supply of approved lots, and the continued



7

recession in the housing market, all contributed toa low number of 42 lots recorded at the Office ofthe Morris County Clerk.

Minor subdivision and site plan activity was mini-mal throughout the Highlands Preservation Area.In 2010, a total of 31 HAD applications were filedwith the New Jersey Department of Environmen-tal Protection (NJDEP) for the Morris County mu-

nicipalities in the Highlands Preservation Area.The three municipalities with the most numberof HAD applications were Jefferson Township (8applications), Mount Olive Township (8 appli-cations), and Washington Township (6 applica-tions). The number of HAD applications contin-ues to fall. In 2008, there were 52 applications andin 2009 there were 34 applications. For each HADapplication, an interpretation was requested fromNJDEP to determine whether a project was (1)exempt (2) not a major highlands development;(3) an unregulated activity and/or (4) consistentwith the current Water Quality Management Plan(WQMP). These HAD applications are on file atthe Morris County Planning Board office, whichmonitors the number of applications made toNJDEP and the determination requested by eachapplicant.

For the year 2010, overall development activ-ity within the Highlands Preservation Area wasminimal. With the approval of the HighlandsRegional Master Plan on September 5, 2008, theimpact of its environmental restrictions on futuredevelopment activity in the Highlands Preserva-tion Area is yet to be determined.

More development data in support of these gen-eral trends are presented in subsequent sections ofthis report.



8

A

combined total of 344 subdivision platsand site plans (including revisions)were submitted to the Morris County

Planning Board for review in 2010. Ofthose applications submitted, 196 were reviewedand reports issued to the applicants through theirrespective municipal planning boards and boardsof adjustment. Another 148 applications receivedcursory review, but were exempt from formalCounty review and approval.

Revised Submissions

As a result of municipal and county planning re-

view, many development applications are revisedand resubmitted one or more times. By countingonly new development applications and not thosethat are revised, trends in development activitycan be better determined.

Section II of this report contains Tables I throughVIII which present specific development infor-mation for Morris County’s 39 municipalities.Within Section I, Charts A through G are based onthose tables and show development activity for2010 compared with the previous nine years. The

observations and comments offered in Section Imake frequent reference to the tables of Section IIas well as the charts contained herein.

A significant portion of the development applica-tions 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 de-

velopment applications are only counted as newsubdivision plats and site plans in the year theywere first submitted to the Morris County Plan-ning Board for review. The date when construc-tion will actually occur is difficult to predict sinceeconomic and market conditions will vary theoutcome.

Table III (Section II) shows 16 revised preliminarysubdivision plats (residential and non-residential)totaling 70 building lots were resubmitted from

previous calendar years. Eight (8) revised residen-tial site plans totaling 536 units were resubmittedin 2010. Also, 35 revised site plans for non-resi-

dential development totaling 1,619,318 square feetof floor area were resubmitted in 2010.

New Submissions

Based on the development applications submit-ted to the Morris County Planning Board overthe last 10 years, general development trends inthe residential and non-residential sectors can beidentified.

3 32

3 80

4 3 2

37 6 3 42

3 62

3 0 8 2 79

2 5 6

19 6

0

10 0

20 0

30 0

40 0

50 0

2 0 01 2 0 02 2 0 03 2 0 04 2 0 05 2 0 06 2 0 07 2 0 08 2 0 09 2 0 10

Total Submissions Reviewed by theMCPB, 2001 through 2010

Chart A

As seen in Chart A, the total number of submis-sions reviewed for 2010 was much lower thanin 2009. It is also much lower than the recessionlevel of 2001. Table 1 (Section II) shows that the28 preliminary plats and 24 final plats (includingrevisions) reviewed in 2010 were lower than the31 preliminary plats and 27 final plats (includingrevisions) reviewed in 2009 (Please refer to the2009 Development Activity Report). This drop

in residential subdivisions reflects the sluggish-ness in the housing market as it works its wayout of the current recession. As seen in Chart A,the decline in residential subdivisions began in2007 (See 2007 Development Activity Report) andcontinued into 2010.

County review of minor subdivisions (includingrevisions) total 16 submissions for 2010. Minorsubdivisions included residential, institutional,commercial and industrial uses, lot line changes,

Development Data



9

and open space preservation parcels. Twentyfour (24) minor subdivisions not affecting Countyroads or County drainage facilities were deemedexempt from formal review. By contrast, 39 minorsubdivisions were reviewed in 2009 and 32 minorsubdivisions were exempt from formal review.

Also, 128 site plans (including revisions) werereviewed by the County in 2010, which is much

less than the 159 site plans (including revisions)reviewed in 2009. (See 2009 Development ActivityReport) These projects either front along Countyroads or consist of at least one acre of new im-pervious surface and, therefore, potentially affectCounty drainage facilities. Site plans for projectsnot fronting along County roads which do notmeet the one acre of new impervious surface crite-ria are deemed exempt from formal review.

4 3 4 5

4 3

29 2 6

2 9

1 9 16

7 6

0

1 0

2 0

3 0

4 0

5 0

2 00 1 2 00 2 2 00 3 2 00 4 2 00 5 2 00 6 2 00 7 2 00 8 2 00 9 2 01 0

Total New Subdivision Plats Reviewed by the

MCPB,

2001 through 2010

Chart B

As seen in Chart B, the total number of new resi-dential subdivision plats submitted was nearly thesame as 2009. Residential activity still remainedsluggish for 2010. New development activity forthe year is presented in Table II (Section II). TheCounty Planning Board received six new prelimi-nary subdivision plats for 24 lots compared to 7new preliminary plats for 256 lots submitted in2009. This low number of new preliminary subdi-vision plats is due to the scarcity of developableland either vacant or available for redevelopment

and the effect that the recession had on the hous-ing market. Except for the large age-restrictedactive adult housing project (Marveland Estates)in Mt. Olive Township, (Please refer to the 2009Development Activity Report) small residentialsubdivisions continued to be common in 2010. Ifthe number of new preliminary subdivision platscontinues to decline, the number of lots availablefor residential development will be limited.

32 8 32 9

48 4

28 3

19 1

14 4 13 7

77

25 6

24

0

10 0

20 0

30 0

40 0

50 0

2 00 1 2 00 2 2 00 3 2 00 4 2 00 5 2 00 6 2 00 7 2 00 8 2 00 9 2 01 0

Number of New Residential Building Lots

from New Subdivision Plats Reviewed,

2001 through 2010

Chart C

As seen in Chart C, the year 2010 saw the lowestnumber of residential lots on record (24) pro-duced from six small preliminary subdivisions.

1 , 0 9 9

2 , 2 9 7

1 , 1 2 1

75 5

93 4

1 , 3 4 5

38 8 4 27 24 3

29 8

0

50 0

1 0 0 0

1 5 0 0

2 0 0 0

2 5 0 0

2 00 1 2 00 2 2 00 3 2 00 4 2 00 5 2 00 6 2 00 7 2 00 8 2 00 9 2 01 0

Townhouses & Multi-Family Units from

New Site Plans Reviewed by the MCPB,2001 through 2010

Chart D

In addition, site plans for apartments, townhous-es, and age-restricted adult housing were sub-mitted to the County Planning Board for review.Table II (Section II) shows that a total of six newresidential site plans for 298 dwelling units weresubmitted during 2010 compared to seven newresidential site plans for 243 dwelling units sub-mitted in 2009. Due to a downturn in the housingmarket during 2007, a steep drop in new dwell-ing units reversed a three-year trend of growth

starting in 2004. The number of units improvedslightly from 2007, but then dropped to the lowestnumber on record in 2009. In 2010, the number ofnew dwelling units increased to 298 units. Growthis expected to be gradual as the housing marketworks its way out of the recession.



10

1 0 3

12 5 11 7

10 3

12 2

8 5 9 1

8 8 8 1

6 8

0

25

50

75

10 0

12 5

15 0

2 00 1 2 00 2 2 00 3 2 00 4 2 00 5 2 00 6 2 00 7 2 00 8 2 00 9 2 01 0

New Site Plans Reviewed by the

MCPB, 2001 through 2010

(does not include residential site plans)

Chart E

As seen in Chart E, the total number of new non-residential site plans submitted for 2010 decreasedfrom 2009. New development activity for the yearis presented in Table II (Section II). The MorrisCounty Planning Board received 68 new non-resi-dential site plans in 2010 compared to 81 in 2009.

1 . 3 3

2 . 9 2 3 . 1 4

2 . 9 2

2 . 2 4

1 . 7 6 1 . 5 4

1 . 3 7 1 . 2 0

1 . 6 3

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

2 00 1 2 00 2 2 00 3 2 00 4 2 00 5 2 00 6 2 00 7 2 00 8 2 00 9 2 01 0

Amount of New Floor Area from New

Non-Residential Site Plans Reviewed,

MCPB, 2001 through 2010

Chart F

As seen in Chart F, there was a modest increaseof proposed non-residential floor area in 2010.This increase is the total new square footage of allnon-residential site plans submitted for Countyreview. For comparison to previous years, seeadjustment note 3 and 4 of Table 11, Section 11.The adjusted total of 1,033,036 square feet for 2010shows a continuing decline in new non-residential

floor area from the high of 3.14 million squarefeet in 2003. A reversal from this low 1.03 millionsquare feet will depend on availability of develop-able land; redevelopment of existing properties;reduction in existing office vacancy rates; andstrengthening of financial markets to providefunding for new development.



11

Single Family Housing

Twelve (12) final subdivision plats con-sisting of 63 lots were approved by theMorris County Planning Board in 2010.The final plat data provided in Table IV

(Section II) represent those subdivisions whichhave advanced from preliminary plat approval.

According to the data in Table IV, final subdivi-sion plats comprised a total area of 279 acres in-cluding new street area and area set aside withindevelopments for open space. The total lengthof new streets was 5,969 feet or 1.13 miles. There

were 3.50 acres dedicated for open space. The av-erage lot size was 181,473 sq. ft. (4.2 acres) and themedian lot size was 109,577 sq. ft. (2.5 acres).

The largest average subdivision lot size occurredin Harding Township at 400,109 sq. ft. (9.19 acres)and the smallest average lot size is found inPequannock Township at 15,993 sq. ft. (0.4 acres).The median subdivision lot size for Morris Coun-ty occurred in the Borough of Riverdale at 109,398sq. ft. (2.5 acres).

Harding Township led the County with the mostlots at 21 followed by the Borough of Riverdalewith 14 lots and the Town of Boonton with 10 lots.Municipalities in which final plat subdivisions oc-cupy the greatest area are Harding Township (200acres), Borough of Riverdale (38.7 acres), and MorrisTownship (20.3 acres).

Shortly following final subdivision approval, finalplats are filed at the Office of the County Clerkwhere the property descriptions become a legalrecord. The lots can be individually sold at that

time. There can be a delay of up to two or moreyears from the time of municipal and county ap-proval and the actual filing of the plat at the Officeof the County Clerk. Table V (Section II) providesa five year record of final plats recorded for eachmunicipality. Forty-three (43) lots were filed at theOffice of the County Clerk during 2010, a slightincrease from the 33 lots recorded in 2009.

A Closer Look

56 1 54 4

43 7

76 7

25 7

12 4 15 2

10 5

33 43

0

10 0

20 0

30 0

40 0

50 0

60 0

70 0

80 0

2 00 1 2 00 2 2 00 3 2 00 4 2 00 5 2 00 6 2 00 7 2 00 8 2 00 9 2 01 0

Number of Single Family House Lots from

Major Subdivisions Recorded at the Office of

the Morris County Clerk, 2001 through 2010

Chart G

As seen in Chart G, except for the 767 lots re-corded in 2004, there was a steady decline in thenumber of lots recorded from 2001 through 2009.In 2010, there was a slight increase in the numberof lots recorded. As a result of the economic slowdown in 2001, only 561 lots were recorded thatyear, which was a dramatic drop from the 1,033lots recorded in 2000. The jump in recorded lotsin 2004 was in response to the enactment of theHighlands Act, to favorable mortgage interestrates, and to subdivision approval time limita-

tions imposed by the New Jersey Municipal LandUse Law (MLUL). These converging factors moti-vated developers to pursue final approval of theirsubdivisions in 2004.

Following in 2005 and 2006, the number of re-corded lots was significantly lower. In 2007, thenumber increased by 18%. This increase in resi-dential activity was from a number of final subdi-vision plats that received municipal preliminaryapproval dating back to the year 2002, but werenot filed with the Office of the County Clerk until

2007. This time lapse occurs when economic con-ditions are not favorable for a developer to startbuilding the subdivision after receiving municipalpreliminary approval. Under the Municipal LandUse Law (N.J.S.A 40:55D-1 et seq.), the grantingof preliminary approval protects the applicantagainst a change in zoning for a period of threeyears, within which time the applicant can obtainfinal plat approval. Also, the municipal planningboard can grant a one year extension of prelimi-



12

nary approval, but not to exceed a total of twoyears. Consequently, this maximum five yearstatutory time limitation prompted developersto record their final subdivision plats in 2007,even in a sluggish housing market. Most of thoserecordings occurred during the first seven monthsof 2007. The month of August 2007 is significantbecause the housing market experienced a down-turn, which became more severe towards the endof 2007 and has continued into 2010.

In 2009, only 33 lots, a record low, (Table V, Sec-tion II) were recorded at the Office of the MorrisCounty Clerk. In 2010, the number increased to42. Most were small residential subdivisions con-sisting of one (technical major subdivision) to sixlots that occurred as infill development in estab-lished neighborhoods in nine municipalities.

Table VI (Section II) notes no new residential sub-divisions of 20 lots or more were received in 2010.

Except for the 13 lot Frelinghuysen subdivision inHarding Township, all other subdivisions were sixor fewer lots. The distribution of residential activ-ity in Morris County for the year 2010 and duringa five year period from 2006 to 2010 is shown onMaps A and B that follow Table VIII (Section II).

Attached and Multi-Family Housing

Shown on Table VII (Section II) is a list of pro-posed residential site plans received by the Morris

County Planning Board. The table includes plansfor apartments, townhouses, condominiums, andage restricted housing units. Six (6) new residen-tial site plans were reviewed in 2010 for 298 unitscompared to seven residential site plans in 2009for 243 units. As the year before, no new assistedliving housing projects were received in 2010.

Two large townhouse projects were reviewedby the Morris County Planning Board. In theBorough of Wharton, Wharton Woods, LLCproposes a 74 unit townhouse project on 9.29

acres at Bartek Lane, Old Irondale Road and MillStreet. The project will consist of 59 market ratetownhouses and 15 affordable housing units with296 parking spaces (118 garage spaces, 178 sur-face parking). Presently, the site is characterizedby upland forest and wetlands. In the Boroughof Morris Plains, the Coventry Park at MorrisPlains site plan proposes 70 townhouse units insix three story buildings with 70 garage spaces,70 driveway spaces and 35 parking lot spaces on

a 4.86 acre site. A tot lot will also be provided.The Morris Plains Country Day School and threedwellings were demolished for the project. InParsippany-Troy Hills Township, Cerbone–PriscoManagement Associates, LLC proposes redevel-opment of a 1.2 acre site at Parsippany Road for amixed use project. It consists of a 50 unit five storycondominium building with 81 parking spaces (26under building) and a 2,503 sq. ft. bank with 17parking spaces. A two story office building will berazed for the project.

There was minimal growth in apartment projectsfor 2010. In Hanover Township, Hanover Renais-sance, LLC proposes a mixed use project on a5.95 acre site at Papermill Drive. It consists of a24 unit two story apartment building (19 marketrate units and 5 affordable housing units) and a15,000 sq. ft. day care center with 132 total park-ing spaces.

As in 2009, growth in the age-restricted adult(55 and older) housing sector was minimal. InMontville Township, Holiday Montville, LLCproposes a 31 unit age-restricted condominiumdevelopment, (Briar Hill at Montville) on 6.2 acresat Vreeland Avenue. The housing consists oftwenty-five two-bedroom detached single-familydwellings and three duplex dwellings contain-ing six one-bedroom affordable units. A commongathering area with gazebo, benches and otheramenities are also proposed. Three existing dwell-ings and accessory structures will be demolishedfor the project. In East Hanover Township, the Es-tate of Catherine Froling proposes 48 townhouse-style senior housing units in five buildings on avacant 3.9 acre tract at Ridgedale Avenue nearEagle Rock Avenue. However, the Township hasplanned to acquire the site for active and passiverecreation. Also, preservation efforts are under-way to preserve the historic Adoniram Prudenhouse built in 1749 which is on an adjacent lot andowned by the Estate.

Commercial, Industrial, and Office

Site plans submitted to the Morris County Plan-ning Board can range from small building addi-tions with a minimal amount of new floor area tonew office buildings, regional retail facilities, andindustrial warehouses with several hundred thou-sand square feet or more of floor area. Industrialsite plans, as a rule, provide larger buildings than



13

do commercial or office, especially those whichinclude warehouse facilities. Table VIII (Section II)provides a list of the more significant site plans ofnon-residential development with new floor area.Only site plans of 50,000 square feet and greaterare included. The weak economy has continuedto limit the number of projects greater than 50,000sq. ft.

In East Hanover Township, Novartis Pharmaceu-tical Corporation began Phase II of East Village attheir U. S. headquarters campus located on Route10 and Ridgedale Avenue. Phase I constructionof East Village began in 2005 and now consists oftwo five story office buildings, a six level parkinggarage, a promenade square and north and southentry plazas to a central park. The centerpiece ofthe village is a rain garden, dining terrace andconference break out area. Phase II of East Vil-lage began in 2010 and will consist of three fivestory office buildings with 691,757 sq. ft. of totalfloor area, a ten level parking garage (three storiesbelow grade), a 4,000 sq. ft. visitor’s center, andphysical plant improvements. The campus’sRidgedale Avenue and Route 10 entrances will berealigned and reconstructed along with rerout-ing of internal roadways to improve traffic flow.Upon completion of Phase II in 2013, the numberof employees of the campus will increase by ap-proximately 1,500.

In the neighboring Borough of Florham Park, alarge redevelopment project called The Green atFlorham Park continues to be active on the former287 acre Exxon Research and Engineering facilitylocated on Park Avenue.. This project was fea-tured in the 2008 Development Activity Report.The Green at Florham Park will be developed asa planned unit development (PUD) in accordancewith a general development plan (GDP) with atentative completion date of 2019.

In 2010, Rock GW, LLC proposed two five-storyoffice buildings containing 599,290 sq. ft. with2,398 parking spaces located at the south side ofthe Park Avenue Connector Street. The revisedplan replaces the four office buildings (599,824 sq.ft.) previously approved for the same area in 2009.In the summer of 2010, construction started on thefirst office building for BASF’s North Americanheadquarters. Upon completion in 2012, the facil-ity will provide office space for 1,100 employees.On the north side of the Park Avenue ConnectorStreet, construction of the Renaissance Club SportHotel (2008), the Atlantic Health Sports Institute

(2008) and the four-story 130,000 sq. ft. officebuilding (2009) have been delayed due to theweak economy. The nearby New York Jets athletictraining facility and executive offices were com-pleted in 2008.

Also along Park Avenue, further southeast in theBorough of Madison, the vacant former Verizonoffice building site will be redeveloped by 175

Park Avenue, LLC. The existing building willincrease in size from 225,300 sq. ft. to 280,300 sq.ft. of which 25,000 sq. ft. will be used for a medi-cal/dental office. Proposed improvements includea new entrance plaza facing the parking area, aninterior courtyard, a café terrace, and a loadingdock. Proposed traffic circulation and parkingimprovements will incorporate a traffic circle,pedestrian walkways and traffic islands.

Within the Cedar Knolls section of HanoverTownship, Settimo and The Three Musketeers,

LLC proposes a phased industrial redevelop-ment of a 13.37 acre site at 64 South JeffersonRoad. Phase I proposes a 48,876 sq. ft. office/warehouse/ distribution center for E&S Foods’corporate offices and a refrigerated warehouse forthe storage and distribution of Italian food prod-ucts. Phase II proposes a 7,806 sq. ft. warehouseexpansion and a new rail siding from the adjacentMorristown and Erie Railroad. Three existingbuildings will remain.

Within the Route 15 corridor of Jefferson Town-

ship, Route 15 Properties, LLC proposes a phasedcommercial development on a vacant 10.8 acresite between Route 15 northbound and south-bound, north of Bowling Green Parkway. PhaseI includes the construction of a 5,338 sq. ft. QuickChek convenience store with vehicular fuelingfacility, a sanitary waste disposal facility and thereconstruction and relocation of Hellers Lane.Phase II proposes a 10,976 sq. ft. two-story retailstructure and a 36,400 sq. ft. two-story retail/warehouse structure with full access to BowlingGreen Parkway via the relocated Hillers Lane.

The tables found in the following Section II pro-vide more detailed information on developmentfor all 39 municipalities in Morris County.



14



15

Section II



16



17

Table I2010 Number of Plats Reviewed, Morris County Planning Board

New/Revised/Total

MunicipalityPreliminarySubdivision

Final SubdivisionMinor

SubdivisionSite Plan

Boonton 1/1/2 2/0/2 - 0/1/1Boonton Twp. - - - -Butler - - - 2/0/2Chatham - - - -Chatham Twp. - - 0/1/1 1/1/2Chester - - - 3/2/5Chester Twp. - - 1/1/2 -Denville - - - -Dover - - - 4/1/5East Hanover - - 1/1/2 7/6/13Florham Park 4/3/7 4/2/6 - 9/7/16Hanover 1/3/4 2/1/3 1/0/1 4/3/7Harding 2/2/4 2/3/5 0/1/1 2/0/2

Jefferson 0/1/1 0/1/1 - 0/2/2Kinnelon - - - -Lincoln Park - - - 1/1/2Long Hill - - 0/2/2 3/3/6Madison - - 0/1/1 2/0/2Mendham - - - 2/0/2Mendham Twp. - - - -Mine Hill 1/0/1 - - -Montville - - - 7/5/12Morris Twp. 0/1/1 0/1/1 1/0/1 5/1/6Morris Plains - - - 1/0/1Morristown - - - -Mountain Lakes - - 1/0/1 -Mt. Arlington - - - 1/0/1Mt. Olive - - - 0/2/2Netcong - - - -Par-Troy 0/1/1 - 1/0/1 3/6/9Pequannock 2/0/2 2/0/2 1/0/1 -Randolph 0/2/2 0/1/1 - 7/2/9Riverdale 0/1/1 1/2/3 - -Rockaway - - - 1/0/1Rockaway Twp. - - - 4/3/7Roxbury 0/2/2 - 0/1/1 1/3/4Victory Gardens - - - -Washington - - - 2/3/5

Wharton - - 1/0/1 3/1/4Total 11/17/28 13/11/24 8/8/16 75/53/128

New Submissions = 107Revised Submissions = 89Total Submissions = 196

In addition, 148 minor subdivision plats and site plans not fronting on County Roads were reviewed and exempted.



18

MunicipalitySubdivisions (1)

Residential(Plats/Lots)

Subdivisions (1)Non-Residential

(Plats/Lots)

Site PlansResidential

(Plans/Units)

Site Plans (2)Non Residential

(Plans/Sq.Ft.)

Boonton 1/3 - - -Boonton Twp. - - - -

Butler - - - 2/5,190

Chatham - - - -

Chatham Twp. - - - 1/0

Chester - - - 3/5,605

Chester Twp. - - - -

Denville - - - -

Dover - - - 4/0

East Hanover - - 1/48 6/723,635

Florham Park - 4/8 - 9/599,290 (3)

Hanover 1/5 - 1/24 3/108,472Harding 2/9 - - 2/0

Jefferson - - - -

Kinnelon - - - -

Lincoln Park - - - 1/0

Long Hill - - - 3/0

Madison - - - 2/59,870

Mendham - - - 2/0

Mendham Twp. - - - -

Mine Hill - 1/4 - -

Montville - - 1/31 6/36,601

Morris Twp. - - - 5/3,442

Morris Plains - - 1/70 -

Morristown - - - -

Mountain Lakes - - - -

Mt. Arlington - - - 1/1,237

Mt. Olive - - - -

Netcong - - - -

Par-Troy - - 2/50 1/2,500

Pequannock 2/7 - - -

Randolph - - - 7/47,970

Riverdale - - - -

Rockaway - - - 1/0

Rockaway Twp. - - - 4/0

Roxbury - - - 1/564

Victory Gardens - - - -

Washington - - - 2/37,950

Wharton - - 1/75 2/0

Total 6/24 5/12 7/298 68/1,632,326 (3,4)

Table II2010 New Submissions, Morris County Planning Board

(1) Major subdivisions (Preliminary Plats)(2) Includes some site plans for building additions or renovations where no new floor area is being added.(3) 599,290 sq. ft. previously accounted for in 2009 total for the Green at Florham Park.(4) For comparison to previous years, use 1,033,036 sq. ft.



19

MunicipalitySubdivisions (2)

Residential(Plats/Lots)

Subdivisions (2)Non-Residential

(Plats/Lots)

Site PlansResidential

(Plans/Units)

Site Plans (3)Non Residential

(Plans/Sq.Ft.)

Boonton 1/6 - - 1/0

Boonton Twp. - - - -

Butler - - - -

Chatham - - - -

Chatham Twp. - - - 1/15,250

Chester - - - 1/0

Chester Twp. - - - -

Denville - - - -

Dover - - - 1/600

East Hanover - - 1/19 2/3,950

Florham Park - 2/6 - 6/1,091,646Hanover 3/11 - 1/140 2/78,002

Harding 2/9 - - -

Jefferson - 1/3 - 2/55,865

Kinnelon - - - -

Lincoln Park - - - -

Long Hill - - 1/1 1/0

Madison - - - -

Mendham - - - -

Mendham Twp. - - - -

Mine Hill - - - -

Montville - - - 2/54,843

Morris Twp. 1/4 - 1/92 -

Morris Plains - - - -

Morristown - - - -

Mountain Lakes - - - -

Mt. Arlington - - - -

Mt. Olive - - - 2/12,900

Netcong - - - -

Par-Troy 1/3 - 1/0 5/222,576

Pequannock - - - -

Randolph 2/7 - 1/0 1/255Riverdale 1/10 - - -

Rockaway - - - -

Rockaway Twp. - - - 3/14,946

Roxbury 2/11 - 1/260 2/37,930

Victory Gardens - - - -

Washington - - - 3/30,555

Wharton - - - 1/0

Total 13/61 3/9 7/512 36/1,619,318

Table III2010, Revised Submissions (1), Morris County Planning Board



20

T a b l e I V

2 0 1 0 F i n a l P l a t s A p p r o v e d M o r r i s C o u n t y P l a n n i

n g B o a r d R e s i d e n t i a l D e t a

c h e d D w e l l i n g U n i t s

M u n i c i p a l i t y

N u m b e r o f

P l a t s

N u m b e r o f

L o t s

G r o s s A r e a

( a c r e )

N e t L o t A r e a

( a c r e )

O p e n S p a c e

( a c r e )

S t r e e t A r e a

( a c r e )

A v e r a g e L o t

S i z e ( S q .

F t . )

L i n e a r F e e t o f

N e w S t r e e t

B o o n t o n

2

1 0

5 . 7

2

4 . 6

8

. 5 0

. 5 4

2 0 , 3

8 6

2 2 3

H a n o v e r

1

4

6 . 9

0

6 . 3

1

0

. 5 9

6 8 , 7

1 6

5 7 5

H a r d i n g

3

2 1

2 0 0 . 0 1

1 9 2 . 8

9

0

7 . 1

2

4 0 0 , 1

0 9

2 , 3

2 6

M o r r i s T w p .

1

4

2 0 . 3 2

1 6 . 5

5

3 . 0

0

. 7 7

1 8 0 , 2

3 0

9 0 0

P e q u a n n o c k

2

7

2 . 9

9

2 . 5

7

0

. 4 2

1 5 , 9

9 3

1 2 0

R a n d o l p h

1

3

4 . 5

6

4 . 3

0

0

. 2 6

6 2 , 4

3 6

0

R i v e r d a l e

2

1 4

3 8 . 6 9

3 5 . 1

6

0

3 . 5

3

1 0 9 , 3

9 8

1 , 8

2 5

T o t a l

1 2

6 3

2 7 9 . 1 9

2 6 2 . 4

6

3 . 5

0

1 3 . 2

3

5 , 9

6 9

A v e r a g e L o t S i z e =

1 8 1 , 4

7 3

s q .

f t .

M e d i a n L o t S i z e =

1 0 9 , 5

7 7 s q .

f t .



21

Table V2006-2010 Number of Single Family House Lots from Major Subdivisions Recorded atthe Office of the Morris County Clerk

Municipality 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 5 Year Total

Boonton 2 - - 7 2 11

Boonton Twp. - - - - 1 1

Butler 3 - 8 3 - 14

Chatham - - - - - -

Chatham Twp. - 3 - - - 3

Chester - - - - - -

Chester Twp. 26 - - - - 26

Denville 33 5 10 3 - 51

Dover - 3 - - - 3

East Hanover 4 3 - - - 7

Florham Park - - - - - -Hanover - 16 1 5 3 25

Harding 12 - 4 - 13 29

Jefferson - - - - - -

Kinnelon 6 - - - - 6

Lincoln Park 6 - - - - 6

Long Hill - 1 - 6 - 7

Madison - - 4 - - 4

Mendham 1 - - - - 1

Mendham Twp. - 12 2 - 3 17

Mine Hill - 5 - - - 5

Montville 6 11 2 7 6 32

Morris Twp. - - 3 - 4 7

Morris Plains - - - - - -

Morristown - - - - - -

Mountain Lakes - - 4 - - 4

Mt. Arlington - - 11 - - 11

Mt. Olive - - 56 - - 56

Netcong - - - - - -

Par-Troy 20 7 - 2 7 36

Pequannock 1 - - - 3 4

Randolph - 6 - - - 6Riverdale - - - - - -

Rockaway 3 - - - - 3

Rockaway Twp. - 8 - - - 8

Roxbury 1 3 - - - 4

Victory Gardens - - - - - -

Washington - 69 - - - 69

Wharton - - - - - -

Total 124 152 105 33 42 456



22

Table VI2010 Proposed Single Family Residential SubdivisionPlats of 20 Lots or More Reviewed by Morris County Planning Board

Municipality Development Name Location Total Lots

(None)



23

Table VII2010 Proposed Townhouse & Multi-Family Site Plans Reviewed byMorris County Planning Board

Municipality Development Name Location Numberof Units

East Hanover Est. of Froling Ridgedale Ave. 48

Hanover Renaissance Parc Papermill Dr 24

Montville Briar Hill at Montville Vreeland Ave. 31

Morris Plains Coventry Park Littleton Rd. 70

Parsippany Par-Troy Renaissance Parsippany Rd. 50

Wharton Wharton Woods Old Irondale Rd. 75



24

Table VIII2010 Commercial, Industrial and Office Site Plans With 50,000 Sq. Ft. or More of NewFloor Area Reviewed by Morris County Planning Board

Municipality Development Name Location Land Use New Sq. Ft.

East Hanover NovartisEast Village

Novartis East Village Ridgedale Ave. Office 695,757

Florham Park Green at Florham Park Park Ave. Office 599,290

Hanover Settimo & 3 Musketeers South Jefferson Industrial 56,682

Jefferson Quick Chek Route 15 Commercial 52,715

Madison 175 Park Avenue Park Ave. Office 55,000



25

JEFFERSON

WASHINGTON

ROCKAWAY TWP

ROXBURY

CHESTER TWP

MOUNT

OLIVE

RANDOLPH

KINNELON

MORRIS TWP

DENVILLE

MENDHAM TWP

LONG HILL

HANOVER

CHATHAM

TW P

BOONTON

TW P

EAST

HANOVER

PEQUANNOCK

FLORHAM

PARK

LINCOLN

PARK

MADISON

DOVER

MENDHAM

BORO

M IN E

HILL

BUTLER

BOONTON

MORRISTOWN

WHARTON

RIVERDALE

MORRIS

PLAINS

MOUNTAIN

L A K E S

CHATHAM

BORO

MOUNT

ARLINGTON

ROCKAWAY

BORO

CHESTER

BORO

NETCONG

VICTORY

GARDENS

PARSI PPANY

MONTV IL L E

HARDING

μ

Number of Lots

0

1 - 2

3 - 4

6 -7

13

0 1 2 3 4 5

Miles

Map A2010 Number of Single Family House Lots from Major Subdivisions Recorded



26

Map B2006-2010 Total Number of Single Family House Lots from Major Subdivisions Recorded

JEFFERSON

ROCKAWAY TWP

ROXBURY

RANDOLPH

KINNELON

MORRIS TWP

MENDHAM TWP

LONG HILL

CHATHAM

TW P

BOONTON

TW P

EAST

HANOVER

PEQUANNOCK

FLORHAM

PARK

LINCOLN

PARK

MADISON

DOVER

MENDHAM

BORO

M IN E

HILL

BUTLER

BOONTON

MORRISTOWN

WHARTON

RIVERDALE

MORRIS

PLAINS

MOUNTAIN

LAKES

CHATHAM

BORO

MOUNT

ARLINGTON

ROCKAWAY

BORO

CHESTER

BORO

NETCONG

VICTORY

GARDENS

MONTVILLE

DENVILLE

PARSIPPANY

WASHINGTON

CHESTER TWP

HARDING

MOUNT

OLIVE

HANOVER

μ0 1 2 3 4 5

Miles

Number of Lots0 - 1

2 - 8

9 - 17

18 - 36

37 - 69



27

Map CNew Jersey Highlands within Morris County

Highlands Preservation AreaMunicipal Statistics

MunicipalityTotal Area

(Acres)

Preservation Area

(Acres) (%)

Boonton Twp. 5,428 493 9

Chester Twp. 18,694 15,783 84

Jefferson Twp. 27,365 24,030 88

Kinnelon 12,295 11,933 97

Montville 12,233 3,425 28

Mt. Arlington 1,783 132 7

Mt. Olive 19,996 15,847 79

Pequannock 4,534 451 10

Randolph 13,537 580 4

Rockaway Twp. 29,405 17,950 61

Roxbury 14,021 4,291 31

Washington Twp. 28,718 25,204 88

Development Activity Report 2010

Documents

Transcript of Development Activity Report 2010