On the agenda: Millville meeting — data center (May 11)

City of Millville Planning Board
May 11, 2026

4th Floor Commission Chamber
6:30 PM
1. Open Public Meetings Act Statement Of Conformance:
“This meeting is being conducted in accordance with the Open Public Meetings Act of
1975, was advertised, posted, and made available to the public as required by Statute.
The secretary is directed to include this statement in the minutes of this meeting."
2. Roll Call

Stephen Dupnock, Chairman
Mayor Dan Dixon
Commissioner Carole Cossaboon
Kristine Garton
Larry Malone
Jared Carll
Nicholas Makos
Rachel Green
Vacant, Class IV
Vacant, Alt I
Vacant, Alt II
3. MINUTES OF THE PREVIOUS MEETING
3.I. Minutes From April 13, 2026
Documents:
PB MINUTES - 4-13-2026.PDF
4. RESOLUTIONS
4.I. Resolution #07-2026PB - William Truxton
Documents:
RES 07-2026PB - WILLIAM TRUXTON.PDF
4.II. Resolution #08-2026PB - 600 Orange, LLC
Documents:
RES 08-2026PB - 600 ORANGE, LLC.PDF
4.III. Resolution #09-2026PB - Orville Peterson
Documents:
RES 09-2026PB - ORVILLE PETERSON.PDF
5. APPLICATIONS
5.I. App #03-2026PB - Charlotte Lacivita
Documents:

(1/7/2029)
(12/01/26)
(11/08/29)
(11/11/28)
(11/11/28)
(11/08/26)
(12/31/29)

5. APPLICATIONS
5.I. App #03-2026PB - Charlotte Lacivita
Documents:
APPLICATION-REDACTED.PDF
SURVEY.PDF
PLANNING REVIEW LETTER 1.PDF
LACIVITA - ENGINEERING REPORT.PDF
6. OTHER BUSINESS
7. PUBLIC COMMENT
8. ADJOURNMENT

CITY OF MILLVILLE PLANNING BOARD
MEETING MINUTES SUMMARY OF THE
APRIL 13, 2026 – SESSION
CALL TO ORDER:
Members of the Millville Planning Board met on the above date for their regularly scheduled monthly
meeting in the Richard C. McCarthy Chambers, on the 4tth Floor of City Hall. The Chairman called the
meeting to order at 6:32 pm and announced that this meeting was being conducted in accordance with the
Open Public Meetings Act of 1975, was advertised, posted, and made available to the public as required by
Statute.
ROLL CALL:
The Secretary conducted roll call. There were nine members in attendance. There was a quorum and the
meeting proceeded.
PRESENT:
Larry Malone
Kristine Garton
Mayor Dixon
Nicholas Makos
Commissioner Cossaboon
Charles McGuire
Rachel Green
Jared Carll, Vice-Chairman
Stephen R. Dupnock, Chairman
PROFESSIONALS:
Lou Garty, Esq - Solicitor
Michelle Nothaft – Assistant Engineer
Christopher Dochney - Planner
Dawn Grossman - Secretary
ADOPTION OF MINUTES:
Regular Planning Board Meeting Minutes of March 9, 2026. Motion to approve – Ms. Garton, seconded
by Vice-Chair Carll. In favor – Mr. Malone, Ms. Garton, Mayor Dixon, Mr. Makos, Commissioner
Cossaboon, Mr. McGuire, Ms. Green, Vice-Chair Carll and Chairman Dupnock.

RESOLUTIONS:
Resolution #06-2026PB – Highland Development Group, LLC, 332 Maple St., Block 114, Lot
26, granting approval of a Minor Subdivision with Bulk C Variance relief. Motion by Ms. Garton, seconded
by Mr. Malone. In favor – Mr. Malone, Ms. Garton, Mayor Dixon, Mr. Makos, Commissioner Cossaboon,
Mr. McGuire, Ms. Green, Vice-Chair Carll, and Chairman Dupnock.

City of Millville Planning Board
Meeting minutes of April 13, 2025
Page 1 of 10

APPLICATION
Application #01-2026PB
William Truxton
68 Fortune Lane
Block 52, Lot 104
Seeking a Minor Subdivision
with Bulk C Variance relief
FOR THE APPLICANT:
Matthew Robinson, Esquire
William Truxton, Applicant
Melanie Lowry, Applicant
PRESENTATION:
Mr. Makos recused himself prior to the presentation due to a conflict.
Matthew Robinson, Esquire appeared on behalf of the applicant. The subject application is a minor
subdivision of a flag lot. This application was before the Board in February, 2026 but was adjourned to the
April 13, 2026 meeting. Rather than have a recorded easement agreement for the single shared driveway
that could potentially propose a future issue, the applicant is now proposing two stems, having two separate
driveways, each measuring 25 feet wide. In this way, each lot will have individual access to its respective
lot.
Mr. Truxton was sworn in and provided testimony regarding his revised plan. Mr. Truxton and the neighbor
that owns Lot 103 have agreed to an access agreement, therefore, alleviating any issue regarding access to
the two separate lots. Mr. Truxton testified that his daughter will build a house on the newly created lot.
Mr. Truxton acknowledged that he may have to appear before the Board in the future as to the impervious
coverage of the proposed driveways. His plan is to create paved driveways, if possible, but will work with
City staff to reach an agreement as to surface material. Mr. Truxton acknowledged that he will adhere to
the City’s tree ordinance, prior to the removal of any trees along the 50 foot tree lined driveway.
Melanie Lowry was sworn in and testified as to the proposed home to be placed on the newly created lot.
The proposed home is a single story, modular home with a basement, just under 1,700 square feet, having
dimensions of 27 feet x 60 feet.
Mr. Truxton agreed to comply with all of the conditions of both the Planning and Engineering reports and
has no objections to the recommended revisions and conditions. Mr. Truxton confirmed that there are no
sidewalks currently in the area and therefore is requesting a waiver from the requirement to install
sidewalks. As to the existing metal fence, Mr. Truxton testified that it does not exceed 6 feet in height.
Mr. Robinson reiterated that this application is for the subdivision only and that there may be a necessity
for a future Board appearance, if all conditions of the City cannot be met, in particular if a stormwater
management system is required.
FOR THE CITY:
Michelle Nothaft, Engineer
Christopher Dochney, Planner

Ms. Nothaft advised that since the proposed impervious coverage will now be less than originally
presented, Stormwater runoff should not be an issue, but the applicant must be mindful of patios,
decks, etc.

City of Millville Planning Board
Meeting minutes of April 13, 2025
Page 2 of 10

Mr. Dochney reminded the Board that although the plan was revised, the proposed subdivision is
non-conforming in several respects such that three forms of variance relief is required. Each lot
still needs a variance for lot frontage, each lot will have 25 feet of frontage, where 80 feet is
required. The applicant will also need a variance to further subdivide a flag lot. As to easements,
the applicant still requires a sliver of an easement to access the rear lot, as well as an easement to
the existing lot 103. Mr. Dochney advised that the amount of tree clearance will be 4,000-6,000
square feet of tree clearance in order to create a new driveway, as well as to construct the home.
To alleviate the easement issue presented previously, another issue regarding tree removal has
arisen.
Ms. Garty stated that the applicant would need to comply with the City’s Tree Preservation
Ordinance, the Zoning and Construction permit procedure, including the submission of a grading
plan and if a new, market rate residential dwelling is constructed, it will be subject to the 1.5%
contribution to the City’s Affordable Housing Trust Fund.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Meeting opened for public comment.
Public comment closed.
MOTION ON THE APPLICATION
Motion on a Minor Subdivision, with Bulk Variance relief, with conditions. Motion by Mayor
Dixon, seconded by Commissioner Cossaboon.
Larry Malone
Yes
Kristine Garton
Yes
Mayor Dixon
Yes
Nicholas Makos
Recused
Comm Cossaboon
Yes
Charles McGuire
Yes
Rachel Green
Yes
Vice-Chair Carll
No
Chairman Dupnock Yes
Vote Tabulation:
(7) In favor (1) Opposed (0) Abstained (1) Recused (Makos)
Application was approved.
APPLICATION
Application #04-2026PB
600 Orange, LLC
600 Orange St.
Block 574, Lot 1
Seeking Amended Site Plan.
FOR THE APPLICANT:
Keith Davis, Esquire
Steve Nardelli, Engineer
Bryan Kruysman, Applicant
Bryan Jewel, Applicant

City of Millville Planning Board
Meeting minutes of April 13, 2025
Page 3 of 10

PRESENTATION:
Keith Davis, Esquire appeared on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Davis explained that this is an
existing warehouse, where the applicant is seeking amended site plan approval, in order to add 6
additional loading docks, making a total of 9 loading docks. The facility is being leased to a
produce distributor. The requested variance is in reference to the minimum number of accessory
parking spaces (43), an existing condition, which should be more than sufficient. The applicant is
also requesting a waiver as to sidewalk installation.
Bryan Kruysman was sworn in and provided testimony as to the application. Mr. Kruysman stated
that he is one of the three partners of 600 Orange, LLC. Currently, the warehouse on the subject
property is vacant. The proposed purpose of this application is to convert the warehouse into a
cooler for a produce distributor, Vineland Agriculture, LLC. Produce will be brought to the
warehouse, packaged and then distributed to stores. Currently, the facility has 3 loading docks, 2
in the front and 1 in the rear of the building. Mr. Kruysman stated that the installation of additional
6 loading docks will make the process more efficient for a building that is 65,000 square feet. The
applicant proposes additional pavement and striping as well. Mr. Kruysman anticipates hiring 3538 new employees, with hours of operation approximately 6 days per week, 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
The produce facility is entirely wholesale and will not have any retail traffic. There are currently
73 parking spaces, which should be more than adequate for employee parking. The facility will
expect between 40-50 trucks per week. The facility will have a local company remove
refuse/recycling, daily. Refuse containers will be covered and enclosed so there is no seepage. No
future expansion plans are being considered at this time. The building is equipped with sufficient
electrical power to meet the need of the coolers. As to the traffic flow, there is minimal traffic
impact. Mr. Kruysman’s company has a smaller facility in Vineland, that has been outgrown.
Stephen Nardelli was sworn in, accepted as an expert in planning and civil engineering and
provided testimony. Mr. Nardelli testified that currently, the facility has 2 loading docks along
Orange Street, one on each asphalt driveway. Another existing dock is in the rear of the building.
Mr. Nardelli indicated that the current number of parking spaces is more than sufficient for the
anticipated number of employees. The proposed additional impervious coverage is under ¼ acre,
with the overall disturbance being less than 1 acre. Due to these proposed conditions, the project
is not considered a major site plan. New fencing is not being proposed in this application. A
retaining wall is being proposed, with new asphalt, after excavating to 4 feet.
Bryan Jewel was sworn in and provided testimony regarding the radius area for turning trucks.
Mr. Jewel stated that there will be a 2-hour window for trucks to load/unload and exit the facility,
although typically it takes 1 hour to load/unload a truck. Without the proposed 6 additional loading
docks, there is the potential of trucks getting behind schedule and fees being assessed. It is
anticipated that no more than 4 trucks will be at the dock, loading/unloading at one time, which
will prevent crowding. Typically, truck deliveries will be staggered throughout the day.
The Board voiced its desire to have bicycle racks installed. The applicant agreed to add that feature
which eliminates the need for bulk variance relief from that requirement.
EXHIBITS
A-1 – Sheet 3 of the Amended Site Plan

City of Millville Planning Board
Meeting minutes of April 13, 2025
Page 4 of 10

FOR THE CITY
Michelle Nothaft
Christopher Dochney
Lou Garty, Esquire
Mr. Dochney suggested any potential issue with drivers backing up could be alleviated by adding
a small amount of additional impervious coverage, if the ¼ acre limit has not been exhausted.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Meeting opened for public comment.
Public comment closed.
MOTION ON THE APPLICATION

Motion to approve the Amended Site Plan, with Bulk C Variance relief as to parking spaces and
design waiver as to sidewalk installation, with conditions.
Motion by Commissioner Cossaboon, seconded by Vice-Chair Carll.
Larry Malone
Yes
Kristine Garton
Yes
Mayor Dixon
Yes
Nicholas Makos
Yes
Comm Cossaboon
Yes
Charles McGuire
Yes
Rachel Green
Yes
Vice-Chair Carll
Yes
Chairman Dupnock Yes
Vote Tabulation:
(9) In favor (0) Opposed (0) Abstained
Application was approved.
APPLICATION
Application #08-2026PB
Orville Peterson
528-530 Crest Ave
Block 403 Lots 1 & 2
Seeking Minor Subdivision (lot line adjustment)
with Bulk Variance Relief
FOR THE APPLICANT:
Matthew Robinson, Esquire
Orville Peterson, Applicant
PRESENTATION:
Matthew Robinson, Esquire, appeared on behalf of the applicant. The applicant is seeking to
move the lot line between lots 1 and 2 to capture the masonry building.

City of Millville Planning Board
Meeting minutes of April 13, 2025
Page 5 of 10

Mr. Peterson was sworn in and provided testimony as to his application. Mr. Peterson resides at
528 Crest Avenue (Lot 2), which he purchased approximately 5 years ago. He purchased 530 Crest
Avenue (Lot 1) approximately 1 year ago. The original intention was to retain 530 Crest Avenue
(Lot 1) as a rental property. Mr. Peterson ultimately decided to adjust the lot line by 60 feet,
thereby, retaining the masonry building within 528 Crest Avenue (Lot 2), which is his primary
residence. Mr. Peterson’s residence consists of a 2 bedroom home that has a carport in the rear for
parking and a garage for storage. Mr. Peterson wishes to use the masonry building for additional
storage. Mr. Peterson’s intention is to list 530 Crest Avenue (Lot 1) with a realtor and sell the
property, should the subdivision be approved. He confirmed that the property has been fully
renovated and is currently vacant. Both properties have individual access from Crest Avenue.
The new driveway installed at 530 Crest Avenue (Lot 1), has dimensions of 30 feet x 40 feet, with
12 foot access. The distance from the proposed lot line to the septic tank access lids are 26 feet
and 29 feet. This creates the need for a bulk variance on 528 Crest Avenue (Lot 2) that leaves a
side yard setback of 5.4 feet to the masonry building, where 10 feet is required. There are 2 preexisting non-conformities, the rear yard setback at 530 Crest Ave (Lot 1) having a current setback
of 34.3 feet, where 35 feet is required and the minimum front yard setback to the accessory
masonry structure. As to the heights of the existing structures, all 4 structures conform with the
current Ordinance. Mr. Peterson confirmed he would not use the existing masonry building as a
business. He also agreed to comply with all conditions of the City. Mr. Peterson also stated that
both properties have City water. Both properties have well water also, however, that is for
irrigation use only.
EXHIBITS:
Exhibit A-1: Aerial View from Nearmap.com
FOR THE CITY:
Michelle Nothaft
Christopher Dochney
Lou Garty, Esquire
PUBLIC COMMENT
Meeting opened to the public.
Public comment closed.
MOTION ON THE APPLICATION
Motion to approve Minor Subdivision, with Bulk C Variance relief, with conditions. Motion by
Mr. Malone, seconded by Ms. Garton.
Larry Malone
Kristine Garton
Mayor Dixon
Nicholas Makos
Comm Cossaboon
Charles McGuire
Rachel Green
Vice-Chair Carll
Chairman Dupnock

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

City of Millville Planning Board
Meeting minutes of April 13, 2025
Page 6 of 10

Vote Tabulation:
(9) In favor (0) Opposed (0) Abstained
Application was approved.
OTHER BUSINESS
Consistency Review of Ordinance 48-2026 referred by the Commission.
Ms. Garty explained the role of the Board to examine the proposed Ordinance prohibiting certain
uses and to make a finding of whether the Ordinance is consistent with the City’s Master Plan
and to make recommendations to the Commission on whether to adopt the Ordinance.
Mr. Dochney gave testimony as to the consistency review of the proposed Ordinance and provided
insight into the use based upon his knowledge of their historical use and the evolution of the use.
He noted that data centers have been in existence for a number of years, but that with the advent
of intensified use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and the growth of cloud storage facilities,
companies using these facilities need massive storage facilities in order to be able to provide these
services. He noted that the concern about data centers is the negative environmental impact due
to the large amount of energy they consume as well as a large amount of water required for the
operation of the cooling systems. These facilities have intensive HVAC systems necessary to cool
the computers being stored. He noted that this type of use is much more concentrated than a
regular warehouse with relatively little opportunity for generation of new employment because
they are simply very large rooms or areas full of computers.
Mr. Dochney noted that this use is a new use which is not specifically mentioned as a permitted
use in the Master Plan as a compatible use. He summarized the various the goals of the City’s
Master Plan which include environmental preservation, conservation of farmland and limited
utility capacity for the overall grid in the region, all of which could be negatively impacted by a
data center. Mr. Dochney reminded the Board that its role is to identify whether the Ordinance
is consistent or inconsistent with the Master Plan. He sees the proposed Ordinance as advancing
the environmental goals, preservation of farmland, as well as respecting the quality of life of the
residents of the City in having adequate utility capacity (for energy and water), all of which is
consistent with the goals of the Master Plan.
The Board had concerns about commercial property uses, such as recycling facilities, that are
currently legally operating in the City. Mr. Dochney stated that those facilities currently operating
in the City prior to the Ordinance, will still be allowed to operate. They will be considered preexisting, non-conforming uses, which are permitted to continue to operate in their current form.
The Board had discussion regarding the proposed Ordinance and whether it would fit with any of
the Zoning areas of the City’s overall Master Plan. The purpose of this Ordinance is to find that
there are no zones which can reasonably accommodate the development of data centers as well
as several other uses listed in the Ordinance. The Ordinance will also clarify the list of uses
permitted in the City.
PUBLIC COMMENT:

The meeting was opened for public comment. All speakers were sworn in individually.

City of Millville Planning Board
Meeting minutes of April 13, 2025
Page 7 of 10

Frank Dougherty, Millville, New Jersey. Mr. Dougherty is in support of data centers coming to
the community and stated there are ways to avoid water and utility consumption.
Beth Nugent, 502 N. 10th St, Millville, New Jersey, stated she is concerned that data centers
could impact the health of the residents of Millville and is pleased that the City is acting
proactively.
Mr. Andriani, Millville, New Jersey stated that he is a new resident to Millville and believes that
data centers would bring new jobs to the City.
Barry Campbell, of East Street, Millville, New Jersey stated his belief that data centers would
provide growth and opportunity to the City and is in favor of data centers.
Jack Plackter, Esquire, Fox Rothschild, Atlantic City, New Jersey, stated that he represents
Anthony DeSantis of Millville, New Jersey, who is the owner of 1300 Wheaton Avenue and 600
G Street. Mr. Plackter believes the proposed Ordinance is due to a preconceived notion of negative
impacts regarding data centers. Mr. Plackter stated a legal argument that prohibiting the use of
data centers is considered exclusionary zoning, is illegal and “will not end well for anyone.” Mr.
Plackter asserted that the prohibition of data centers is inconsistent with the master plan and
development objectives. Mr. Plackter stated that depending on the specific data center, it could be
environmentally impactful. He asserted that a data center be a beneficial ratable for the City and
that issues with noise could be addressed through the local noise Ordinance. He concluded that
his client would prefer that Millville adopt an Ordinance in which data centers are a conditionally
permitted use but did not specify in which zone that they could be accommodated or the conditions
which would be applicable.
Ms. Garty responded to various comments in Mr. Plackter’s speech, noting that at least one of his
client’s properties, at 1300 Wheaton Avenue or 600 G Street, was part of a Redevelopment project,
so it would be subject to the zoning overlay of the designated Redevelopment zone. Mr. Plackter
represented to the Board that he was unaware of whether either property was the subject of a
Redevelopment project or Agreement. Mr. Plackter’s client interrupted the comments with an
exclamation which was not captured. Ms. Garty indicated that a proposed developer could still
make an application before the Zoning Board for a Use variance to approve a proposed use that is
prohibited in any zone. Ms. Garty inquired whether the developer had any pending Applications
for these two properties before the Planning or Zoning Board and Mr. Plackter stated that he was
not aware of whether the developer had any pending Applications. Ms. Garty noted that the
Planning Board had no pending Applications and that she was unaware of any Applications by the
developer before the Zoning Board for a Use variance. Ms. Garty responded to Mr. Plackter’s
comment in his opening statement in which Mr. Plackter asserted that adopting the proposed
Ordinance “would not end well for either side” which she perceived as a clear threat to the
members of the Planning Board and that such threats are inappropriate. Mr. Plackter asserted that
he did not intend to threaten the Board, but Ms. Garty affirmed that she interpreted the comment
as a threat. There was a discussion about the concern for the excessive amount of noise generated
by these facilities. She noted that in other instances of development where excessive noise is a
concern, the issue of compliance with a local Ordinance can become a chronic enforcement issue,

City of Millville Planning Board
Meeting minutes of April 13, 2025
Page 8 of 10

which can result in persistent issues in enforcing the noise Ordinance for compliance, making such
a property a drain on municipal resources with frequent enforcement activities being necessary to
protect the quality of life of the adjacent property owners.
Tiffany Morrissey was recognized as a licensed, Professional Planner and was sworn in before
being given the opportunity to provide additional comments on behalf of Mr. Plackter’s client
concerning the proposed Ordinance. Ms. Morrissey stated that she does not believe that the
Ordinance is consistent with the City’s Master Plan because the Ordinance is too broad, and did
not consider certain long-term impacts. She asserted that data centers have been operating for over
20 years but operating under a different name or description, that she believes that the proposed
Ordinance is a blanket prohibition of all aspects of development and does not take into
consideration certain short- and long-term impacts.
Anthony DeSantis, the owner and developer of 600 G Street, Millville, New Jersey. Mr. DeSantis
opened his comments by displaying a photo on his cell phone of his minor children and stated his
belief that the City is making a bad decision by prohibiting data centers. He stated his opinion that
the City should find a way to make green energy, as well as recycle and clean the water that is used
for data centers. The Board Chairman advised Mr. DeSantis not to raise his voice during his
comments to the Planning Board and Mr. DeSantis apologized, stating that he wants to work with
the City to make data centers functional in the City. He believes that each application for a data
center should be addressed on a case-by-case basis.
Paul Porreca, of Millville, New Jersey stated his concern about the other prohibited uses referenced
in the proposed Ordinance and that the provisions will portray Millville as a City which is not
interested in economic development.
Thomas McGinty, of Millville, New Jersey, stated that he has always been concerned with the
environment and previously worked for the Department of Environmental Protection and shared
his passion for working on environmental issues. Mr. McGinty stated a belief that data centers
could help the aquifer, that data centers do not produce any ozone that would (negatively) impact
the environment.
Tiffany Morrissey, the Professional Planner retained by Mr. DeSantis, was given the opportunity
to provide additional public comment. She repeated her comment that the proposed Ordinance is
a blanket prohibition on all data centers, not just components and asserted that the Ordinance will
prohibit accessory uses to some business which are necessary for operations, including banks. She
stated that there are currently various industrial zones in Millville where the data centers would be
appropriate. Ms. Morrisey referenced items in the 2017 Land Use Element, as well as the 2025
Master Plan Reexamination. Ms. Morrisey stated that the Master Plan does not reference specific
uses being prohibited.
Chairman Dupnock closed the public comment portion of the meeting. The Board engaged in
further discussion as to the purpose of the review and including the testimony of the Board’s
Planner.

City of Millville Planning Board
Meeting minutes of April 13, 2025
Page 9 of 10

MOTION
Motion to find proposed Ordinance #48-2026 is consistent with the Master Plan and to authorize
the Chairman to sign the draft Resolution and authorize the Board Secretary to report the
Planning Board’s findings to the Commissioners. Motion by Mayor Dixon, seconded by Ms.
Green.
Larry Malone
No
Kristine Garton
Yes
Mayor Dixon
Yes
Nicholas Makos
Yes
Comm Cossaboon
Yes
Charles McGuire
Yes
Rachel Green
Yes
Vice-Chair Carll
Yes
Chairman Dupnock Yes
Vote Tabulation:
(8) In favor (1) Opposed (0) Abstained
Ordinance #48-2026 was deemed consistent with the Master Plan
PUBLIC COMMENT
Meeting opened for public comment.
Public comment closed.
ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 9:32 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,

Dawn Grossman
Planning Board Secretary

City of Millville Planning Board
Meeting minutes of April 13, 2025
Page 10 of 10

Resolution of the
City of Millville Planning Board
Application No. 01-2026PB
RESOLUTION NO. 07-2026PB
WHEREAS, the Applicant, William Truxton, filed an Application with the City of
Millville Planning Board seeking approval for a proposed Minor Subdivision for the property
designated as Block 52, Lot 104 on the Municipal Tax Map of the City of Millville, which is more
commonly known 68 Fortune Lane; and
WHEREAS, the host lot is currently developed with a single-family dwelling; and
WHEREAS, the site is located in the MDR (Medium Density Residential) District; and
WHEREAS, with respect to the completeness of the Application submissions, the Board’s
Engineer and Planner recommended that the Application be deemed complete for review. Based
upon the submissions and the recommendation of the Board’s professional consultants, the Board
voted affirmatively to deem the Application complete; and
WHEREAS, the Application was considered by the Board at a hearings conducted on
February 9, 2026 and on April 13, 2026, during which the following documents and submissions
were presented:
Submissions and Testimony of Record at the Hearing. In reaching its decision, the Board relied
on the submissions, Exhibits, and witness testimony identified below:
a.

The Applicant’s submissions:
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪

Transmittal Letter, prepared by Matthew Robinson, Esq., of Robinson &
Robinson dated 1-5-26
City of Millville Development Application Form, dated 1-06-26
Development Application Checklist
Request for New Lot Numbers From Tax Assessor
Disclosure Statement, Professional Contact Information, W-9 form
Minor Subdivision Plan, prepared by Erik F. Valentin, PLS, for Ewing
Associates, dated December 2, 2025 (1 sheet) revised March 4, 2026

b. Reports from the Board’s professionals and staff:
▪ Planning Review letter dated February 5, 2026 and March 26, 2026 by Christopher N.
Dochney, PP, AICP of CME Associates
▪ Engineering Review memos dated February 4, 2026 and April 6, 2026 by Michelle
Nothaft, PE.

c. Exhibits: The following Exhibits were marked at the hearing and entered into
evidence: None.
Exhibit A-1: Initial set of Plans with the Application (2-9-26 hearing)
d. Testimony and Legal Presentation:
Mr. Makos recused himself and did not participate in the hearings on the Application. The
Applicant’s counsel, Matthew Robinson, Esq., of Robinson & Robinson, presented the Application
on behalf of the Applicant corporation, and provided a summary of the Application and the relief
sought, namely approval of the proposed Minor Subdivision. Mr. Robinson stated that the
Applicant is seeking the proposed subdivision in order to construct another residence for his
daughter on the newly created lot and would remain in the existing home on the original lot. The
Applicant’s counsel acknowledged that the existing “host” lot is a flag lot and that the subdivision
of a flag lot requires variance relief. Mr. Robinson’s presentation included an overview of the
alternate subdivision configuration proposed where the subdivision would split the driveway into
two 25 ft. stems to have sole access to each property.
Mr. Truxton was sworn and affirmed the representations made by his attorney, and testified
that with the revised Subdivision plan, Lot 103 has asphalt on Lot 104 and that he agreed to execute
and record an access agreement or an easement to confirm a means for perpetual for Lot 103 for
the two “stem” driveways between the two proposed lots. Mr. Truxton testified to respond to the
Engineering review memo, comment #3 as to the stormwater management, that he did not agree
to address that component at this time, but acknowledged that if stormwater management is
required, he will need to return to the Board for some form of approval or relief. With respect to
the clearing of trees, he acknowledged that he would have to comply with the City’s Tree
Preservation Ordinance as a condition of approval. He described the proposed house on the new
lot, that it will have driveway and that for the newly created lot, the development will clear only
those trees needed to construct a house.
Melanie Lowery, who resides in the State of Florida, was sworn and testified as to the
footprint of the proposed house, which measures 1700 SF, with a basement and that the design is
for a 1-story house, which is intended for her to occupy.
Mr. Truxton resumed his testimony and agreed to comply with the additional submission
requirements noted on pp. 2, 3 on Engineer’s report. Mr. Truxton responded to the Planner’s
comments and acknowledged that this revised subdivision does create two lots which each have a
25 ft. lot frontage, which does not meet the Code requirements, so that bulk variance relief is
required. The Applicant also seeks relief to allow the subdivision of a flag lot which would create
another flag lot. The Applicant is no proposing to install any sidewalks and is seeking a design
waiver from that requirement. There was a discussion about whether the additional impervious
coverage would provide a benefit to pedestrians. Mr. Truxton testified that the height of the
existing fence noted is 6 ft., which complies with the height restrictions.

-2-

e. Comments by the Board members:
Ms. Garton asked about the bituminous driveway shown on the survey and inquired
whether the Applicant would utilize a paved driveway. There was a discussion that the Applicant
seeks the subdivision and development of the new lot but wants to avoid having to install
stormwater management measures for two residential lots, so he proposes to keep the stone drive
so the stormwater regulations are not triggered.
Mr. Dupnock noted the need for an access agreement. Mr. Truxton testified that the
driveway for Lot 103 is not the primary access for that lot, because the driveway is a loop.
f. Comments by the Board’s Professional consultants:
Ms. Nothaft noted that the house appears to have a 50 ft. by 70 ft footprint which measures
3500 SF and that with the long driveway, the envelope of the house might trigger the need to have
a Stormwater management system in place, but that if the house is 1700 SF or less, the area of
disturbance would likely be under the area which would necessitate stormwater management
measures. Ms. Lowery addressed the house floor plan and testified that it is 27 ft. by 60 ft. so the
area of disturbance is actually 1620 SF.
Mr. Dochney noted that the subdivision application necessitates several bulk variances, one
for each of the two lots to allow lot frontage of 25 ft. and to permit a subdivision which creates a
flag lot, along with a design waiver for relief from the requirement to install sidewalks. There was
a discussion that the site will require tree clearance for the proposed new driveway which will
increase the number of trees removed and that the Applicant is required to comply with the Tree
Preservation Ordinance. The Applicant acknowledged this requirement and there was a discussion
that if the dwelling to be constructed is a market rate housing, the Applicant is required to comply
with the requirement of the Affordable Housing law for the contribution to the City’s trust fund.
It was noted that no waiver was requested from the requirement to install sidewalks but
that there are no other homes in the immediate area which have sidewalks so that requiring the
installation would not add pedestrian connectivity while increasing impervious coverage, with no
benefit. The Board’s consultants recommended granting this waiver.
g. Public comment. None.
h. Specific conditions agreed to by the Applicant at the hearing: The Applicant
agreed to the following revisions to the design plan and the following conditions for approval, all
of which were material to the Board’s determination:
1. As a condition of approval, the Applicant is required to make all changes to the plot
plan and/or Subdivision documents to be submitted and filed which complies with the comments
in the Engineering Review memo dated April 7, 2026, Comments 1-3 and the comments at the

-3-

bottom of page 2, page 3 (grading plan) and outside agency approvals and Planning comments 5g,
5i-m.
2. As a condition of approval, the legal descriptions and form of the Deed to be recorded
to accomplish the Minor Subdivision are to be submitted to the Board’s Planner, Engineer and
Solicitor for review and approval.
3. As a condition of approval, the proposed block and lot numbers shall be assigned or
approved by the Township’s Tax Assessor.
4. If the Subdivision requires the reconfiguration or changes to the Township’s Tax map
and/or formulation of a new Tax map, the Applicant will incur and reimburse the Township for the
cost of such revisions.
5. If the Applicant or any owner of the land needs to remove any tree(s) in order to build
on the subdivided lot, the Applicant or any future owner of the property must comply with the
City’s tree preservation ordinance.
6. As a condition of approval, the Applicant is required to submit a grading plan to the
Board’s Engineer for approval prior to issuance of any permits relating to the construction of the
dwelling on the subdivided lot or any improvements installed on the lot. In addition, prior to the
issuance of any construction permits, the Applicant or anyone constructing a single-family
dwelling on the newly created lot must obtain the confirmation or approval of the City’s Engineer
that the area of disturbance does not necessitate the creation and use of a stormwater management
system for the two lots.
7. The Applicant has testified that they will construct a single-family dwelling with an
accessory structure, a shed, on the subdivided lot. The within Application did not seek any bulk
variance or waiver relief for the newly created lot so that the construction of the dwelling and
accessory structure must comply with all bulk requirements and design standards as a condition
for issuing the construction permits.
8. If the development proposed for the newly created lot triggers the requirement to have
a stormwater management system, the Applicant is required to return to the Board to address that
aspect of the design prior to the commencement construction as no building, construction or other
permits will be issued without a stormwater management system approved (or relief) if required
by the nature of the proposed development.
9. As a condition of approval, the Applicant acknowledged that it will be required to
obtain all required approvals, make all required revisions and add information or notes to final
drawings or plans and obtain required approvals, and must conform with all other Code
requirements and pay all required fees for permits, inspections, assessments, and property taxes.
10. If the development of the single-family dwelling on the newly created lot is for new,
residential improvement of market rate housing, under the applicable City Ordinance and State
statute, the Applicant is required to contribute to the City’s Affordable Housing Trust Fund in the
amount of 1.5% of the equalized, assessed value of the improvements made.
11. These specific conditions of approval, and any additional conditions of approval shall
be binding upon the Applicant, the owner, and any successors and/or assigns of them.
Findings; Determination.
1. The Applicant, William Truxton, filed an Application seeking a Minor Subdivision for
the property identified on the Official Tax Map of the City of Millville as Block 52, Lot 104 on
the Municipal Tax Map of the City of Millville, which is more commonly known 68 Fortune Lane.
-4-

2. The property is located in the MDR (Medium Density Residential) District.
3. At the hearing on the Application on February 9, 2026, the Board voted affirmatively
to deem that the Application was complete.
4. Prior to the second hearing on the Application on April 11, 2026, the Applicant
submitted a revised design plan for the Subdivision of the flag lot
5. The Board determined that the Applicant presented sufficient testimony or reasons to
grant the Subdivision which requires bulk variance relief as to the non-conforming lot frontage for
both the host and newly created lots and to permit the subdivision of a flag lot which results in the
creation of a second flag lot. The Board found that due to the size of the host lot (6 acres) which
exceeds the minimum lot requirements and that the size of both of the lots created by the
subdivision would still greatly exceed the minimum lot size required, and that combined with the
proposed measures agreed to for unfettered access for both lots, that the Applicant showed that
granting the relief was a good planning alternative, which advance purposes of the MLUL and that
the benefits of granting the relief substantially outweighs the detriment, as the proposed
subdivision can provide another residential dwelling, and promoting the development of additional
housing in appropriate places is an essential purpose of the Master Plan.
6. The Board determined that the Applicant presented sufficient testimony or reasons to
grant the Subdivision of the flag lot in which a second flag lot was created, necessitating variance
relief as flag lots are not permitted and not permitted to be created by a subdivision. The Applicant
presented sufficient testimony that the revised design for access, in which the Applicant/developer
would execute and record an access agreement or an easement to confirm a means for perpetual
for Lot 103 using two “stem” driveways between the two proposed lots.
7.
The Board determined that the Applicant presented competent testimony as to the
burden of proof for granting relief in the form of confirming the pre-existing, non-conforming
front yard setback for the dwelling on the host lot (Lot 104), and that it was impractical and a
hardship to require the Applicant to comply with the setback requirement, so that relief in the form
of confirming this pre-existing condition was appropriate and is not being exacerbated.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that based upon the record as summarized
herein and the findings by the City of Millville Planning Board that the Application of William
Truxton, seeking approval of a Minor Subdivision for the property identified on the Official Tax
Map of the City of Millville as Block 52, Lot 104, which is more commonly known 68 Fortune
Lane, is hereby GRANTED; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that based upon the record as summarized herein and the
findings by the City of Millville Planning Board, relief from §30-130B(6) of the City Code which
does not permit the subdivision of a flag lot and which does not permit a subdivision which creates
a flag lot (Lot 103) through the Subdivision of the existing flag lot, the host lot, Lot 104 is hereby
GRANTED; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that based upon the record as summarized herein and the
findings by the City of Millville Planning Board, relief from §30-117.4D to allow non-conforming
lot frontage for Lots 103 and 104 of 25 ft. for each lot where 80 ft. of frontage is required is hereby
GRANTED; and

-5-

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that based upon the record as summarized herein and the
findings by the City of Millville Planning Board, that relief from §30-181D1 in the form of a
design waiver so as to relieve the developer from the requirement of the Code to install sidewalks
on a site where new development is proposed is hereby GRANTED; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that based upon the record as summarized herein and the
findings by the City of Millville Planning Board subject to the following specific conditions as set
forth on the record at the hearing and as summarized herein:
1.
The Applicant agrees to satisfy the conditions outlined within the Board
Professionals’ review letters as described herein, unless otherwise satisfied through testimony or
modified during the hearing and as set forth in Section 1h (#1-11).
2.
The Applicant agreed to comply with all other usual and customary conditions as
may be required by the Board, with respect to required approvals by other agencies with
jurisdiction, payment of all required fees, submission of plans and timely payment of escrows.
3.
As a condition of approval, the Applicant acknowledged that it will be required to
obtain all required approvals, make all required revisions and add information or notes to final
drawings or plans and obtain required approvals, and must conform with all other Code
requirements and pay all required fees for permits, inspections, assessments, and property taxes.
4.
The Applicant has submitted certain plans, drawings, rules, depictions, written
summaries, concept plans, surveys, elevation plans and other tangible things or documents that
were accepted by the Planning Board as part of its Application. Further, its representatives and/or
witnesses have made certain representations, provided testimony, the agreed upon modifications
to the plans, drawings and/or other features, all of which were made at the public hearings and all
of which have been relied upon by the Planning Board in making its findings and determinations.
Should there be any material deviation from said documents, plans, representations, agreements
made, the testimony presented, the modifications to be made, modifications agreed to or
modifications to any of the conditions contained herein and/or otherwise agreed to, then the failure
to comply with those representations, changes and/or agreements shall be deemed a violation of
the approvals granted and the Planning Board may, upon notice to the Applicant and an opportunity
to be heard, elect to rescind its approval.
5.
As a condition of this approval, the Applicant is required to comply with its fees for
inspections and the escrow agreement, if any, with the City of Millville for the payment of the
Board’s professional consultants. No plan shall be processed, no Deeds and/or plats shall be
signed, no permits shall be issued, and no certificate of occupancy shall be granted unless and until
all outstanding professional fees and taxes are paid, including any applicable Affordable Housing
contributions, and an appropriate escrow deposit created to pay for future sums due. The Applicant
agrees to promptly pay any professional staff fees billed, in excess of the required application
escrows, or file a written protest with the City Business Administrator within seven (7) days of
receipt of a final voucher from the City.
6.
Any improvement(s) to be constructed as a result of the Board approving this
application shall be constructed and operated in full compliance with the Uniform Construction
Code, the Code, the Revised Statutes of the State of New Jersey, and any other applicable state,
county, and/or federal law. The Applicant/owner is responsible for obtaining all zoning and/or
building permits and approvals necessary to construct the project/development and the various
improvements, including any permits for the erection of a sign. The Applicant shall obtain all
required approvals from any other county, state, or municipal agency having jurisdiction over the
-6-

application, including the Cumberland County Planning Board, Cumberland County Soil and
Water Conservation District, City of Millville Department of Public Works, NJ DEP.
7.
These General Conditions of Approval, and any additional conditions of approval,
if any, shall be binding upon the applicant, the owner, and any successors and/or assigns of them.
ROLL CALL
MEMBER
Stephen R.
Dupnock,
Chairman
Jared Carll,
Vice Chairman
Mayor Dan Dixon
Commissioner
Carole Cossaboon
Kristine Garton
Larry Malone
Nicholas Makos
Rachel Green
Vacant, Class IV
Vacant, Alt. I
Vacant, Alt. II

Motion 2nd

YEA NAY

ABSENT

RECUSED

CERTIFICATION
I, Dawn Grossman, Secretary of the Planning Board for the City of Millville, Cumberland
County and State of New Jersey, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a
findings and determination of the Board for this Application heard at its meeting held at the City Hall,
12 S. High Street in Millville, NJ 08332 on April 13, 2026 as memorialized by the Resolution adopted
by the Board at its meeting held on May 11, 2026.
___________________________________
DAWN GROSSMAN, SECRETARY
CITY OF MILLVILLE PLANNING BOARD

______________________________________
STEPHEN R. DUPNOCK, CHAIRMAN

-7-

Resolution of the
City of Millville Planning Board
Application No. 04-2026PB
RESOLUTION NO. 08-2026PB
WHEREAS, 600 Orange, LLC, submitted an Application to the City of Millville Planning
Board seeking approval of an Amended Preliminary and Final Major Site Plan and requesting bulk
variance relief with respect to the property identified on the Official Tax Map for the City of
Millville as Block 574, Lot 1, which is more commonly known as 600 Orange Street; and
WHEREAS, the site is located in the Business Enterprise (BE District) zone and is
developed with a warehouse; and
WHEREAS, with respect to the completeness of the Application submissions, the Board’s
Engineer and Planner recommended that the Application be deemed complete for review. Based
upon the submissions and the recommendation of the Board’s professional consultants, the Board
voted affirmatively to deem the Application complete; and
WHEREAS, the Application was considered by the Board at a hearing conducted on April
13, 2026, during which the following documents and submissions were presented:
Submissions and Testimony of Record at the Hearing. In reaching its decision, the Board relied
on the submissions, Exhibits, and witness testimony identified below:
a.

The Applicant’s submissions:

▪
▪
▪
▪

Transmittal Letter, prepared by Keith A. Davis, Esq. dated February 10, 2026
City of Millville Development Application Form, dated 2-5-26
Plat and Plan Conformity Details, dated February 5, 2026
Site Plan, prepared by Stephen J. Nardelli, PE PP and Guy M. DeFabrites, PLS PP,
for Fralinger Engineering PA, dated January 15, 2026, containing 5 sheets
Disclosure Statement, Professional Contact Information, W-9 form

▪

b. Reports from the Board’s professional consultants and staff:
▪ Planning Review letter dated March 27, 2026 by Christopher N. Dochney, PP,
AICP of CME Associates
▪ Engineering Review memo dated April 7, 2026 by Michelle Nothaft, PE.
c. Exhibits: The following Exhibits were marked at the hearing and entered into
evidence:
Exhibit A-1: Site Plan renderings (sheet 3)

d. Testimony:
The Applicant’s counsel, Keith Davis, Esq. of Nehmad Davis & Goldstein, P.C., provided
an overview of the relief sought which is approval for an amendment of the approved Site Plan to
add six new loading docks to lease to a produce distributor. There is sufficient parking with 43
stalls currently, but there are no loading spaces, and the applicant seeks relief from the requirement
to have a loading space and from the requirement to install sidewalks where there are none in the
area.
Bryan Kruysman was sworn and testified about the current use, the plan to repurpose the
building to use as a cooling site for the tenant company, Vineland Agricultural, which repacks
produce and refrigerates it pending transportation. The business needs additional loading docks,
they have three now which is not enough for 65,000 SF building. There was a discussion that the
improvements will include paving, restriping the parking area and other improvements to the site.
He anticipates that between 35-38 new employees will be added with the addition that no retail
operations will take place as it is only a wholesale operation. He testified that there are 43 parking
stalls on the site which is sufficient for the tenant’s needs. Mr. Kruysman described the frequency
of deliveries, the means for collecting refuse and recycling, which will be collected by a private
contractor and will be removed daily given the short-term life of the produce processed at the
warehouse. He noted that most of the produce processed is imported. He also testified that the
trash receptables are covered and enclosed and that no hazardous materials are produced or
disposed of from the site. Mr. Kruysman testified that the Applicant does not have plans for
expansion of the site and acknowledged that they would have to return to the Planning Board for
Board approval if the site is changed.
Steven Nardelli, P.E., P.P. was sworn and accepted as an expert in engineering and
Planning. Mr. Nardelli identified and described Exhibit A-1, sheet 3 of the drawings and identified
the location of the loading docks at asphalt driveways, the dock at the rear of the site and testified
that the use is permitted in the zone, that no variances are sought other than for the amount of
parking stalls, for relief from the requirement to have a loading space, and for a waiver from the
requirement to install sidewalks. Based upon the testimony about operations, he stated his opinion
that there is sufficient parking for the site, that the proposed design provides sufficient light, air
and open space serving a purpose of zoning, sufficient to grant the variance relief requested. He
addressed the request for the design waiver, noting that there are no other properties with a
sidewalk within the industrial area, that the development does not qualify as major development,
because there is less than ¼ acre of disturbance. He testified that the trash compactor will be
outside the building and identified the location on the plans and agreed to add that feature to final
plans.
Mr. Nardelli responded to the Planning and Engineering comments and testified that the
Applicant agreed to install a bike rack which obviates the need for a bulk variance. Mr. Nardelli
identified the specific area where loading dock will be added and testified that the design provides
for the unshaded area in the center of the site to remain as grass. There was a discussion about the
entry for employees and the ability to direct and control truck traffic.

-2-

e. Comments by the Board members:
Ms. Garton asked about the location of the loading doors. The Applicant responded that
two are in the front of the building and one is located at the rear of the site. There was a question
about the sufficiency of energy. The hours of operation are anticipated to be 7am to 4pm, six days
per week.
Ms. Green asked about the amount truck traffic. The Applicant anticipates
approximately 50 truck trips per week, which will be about 8 trucks per day for 6 days per week,
so that based upon the number of trucks and the loading time, the truck traffic would be
staggered so that it would not have a significant impact overall on traffic.
f. Public comment. None.
g. Comments by the Board’s Professional consultants:
Ms. Nothaft summarized the Engineering comments, and the Applicant provided responses
to the items. It was noted that the Applicant agreed to work with the Board’s Engineer to explore
area to have a sufficient space for trucks to turn around without triggering the need to install a
stormwater management facility.
Mr. Nardelli testified, explaining his opinion that there is sufficient area for a K-turn to turn
around on the western side of the site. Mr. Dochney raised his concern about whether there was
sufficient room for circulation on the east side. Bryan Jewell was sworn and testified as to the
turning movements for the trucks and testified that this site design provides more room than exists
at the Applicant’s Vineland Location and the circulation is sufficient. Mr. Jewell added that they
have no more than four trucks at a time and that they can control the arrival times, the deliveries
are staggered so that not all of the unloading occurs at the same time.
Mr. Dochney asked how long loading takes. Mr. Jewell responded that it takes about two
hours and that they typically will have all six docks occupied.
Ms. Nothaft asked about the excavation proposed as noted on the plans and how the
excavation will affect drainage. The Applicant’s engineer explained how the excavation would
be performed and the proposed grading.
h. Specific conditions agreed to by the Applicant at the hearing: The Applicant agreed
to the following revisions to the design plan and the following conditions for approval, all of
which were material to the Board’s determination:
1. As a condition of approval, the Applicant is required to make changes to the Major Site
Plan documents submitted consistent with the Engineering Review letter dated April 7, 2026
including General Comment 1, Amended plan comment 1, and outside agency approvals as
applicable and other comments as stated at the hearing, including the inclusion of the trash
compactor and working with the Engineer on the turning movements for trucks.

-3-

2. As a condition of approval, the Applicant is required to make changes to the Major Site
Plan documents submitted consistent with the Planning Review letter dated March 27, 2026
including Planning comments 5f, i.
3. As a condition of approval, the Applicant is required to install bike rack(s) as required,
which obviates the need for bulk variance relief. If not integrated into the final plans, the Applicant
would have to return to the Board for bulk variance relief.
4. The Applicant acknowledged that it is required to comply with the City’s Ordinance
relating to providing recycling reports.
5. As a condition of approval, the Applicant will be required to comply with the City’s
Ordinances and obtain all required permits for the proposed construction and to pass all inspections
of the construction.
6. The proposed construction of the improvements constitutes new, non-residential
improvements such that under the applicable City Ordinance and State statute, the Applicant is
required to contribute to the City’s Affordable Housing Trust Fund in the amount of 2.5% of the
equalized, assessed value of the new improvements installed.
7. As a condition of approval, the Applicant will be required to comply with the City’s
Ordinances and obtain all required permits for the proposed construction and to pass all inspections
of the construction.
Findings; Determination.
1. The Applicant, 600 Orange, LLC, submitted an Application to the City of Millville
Planning Board seeking approval of an Amended Preliminary and Final Major Site Plan approval
and requesting bulk variance relief with respect to the property identified on the Official Tax Map
for the City of Millville as Block 574, Lot 1, which is more commonly known as 600 Orange
Street.
2. The site is located in the Business Enterprise (BE District) zone.
3. The Board deemed the Application complete by affirmative vote of the Board.
4. The Application was presented during the course of one session which occurred on
April 13, 2026.
5. The Board reviewed the documents submitted by the Applicant, heard the testimony
presented and found that the Applicant presented credible and persuasive evidence for the Board
to find that the Applicant met the burden of proof necessary for the approval of the Amendment to
the Preliminary and Final Major Site Plan.
6. The Board heard the testimony presented as to the bulk variance relief or to permit the
continuation of certain pre-existing, non-conforming condition as to the minimum side yard
setback of 17.6 ft. from Orange Street, which is not being exacerbated with the modifications
proposed and found that it would be impractical and/or burdensome for the Applicant to comply
with the setback as the property is already developed.
7. The Board heard the testimony presented as to the bulk variance relief as to the number
of parking stalls required and found that granting the relief sought was justified based upon the
operational testimony provided of a very similar facility in Vineland, NJ and that requiring
additional parking would only add impervious coverage without a benefit such that the Applicant
met the c2 “flexible” standard for granting the relief requested. The Board also considered the
testimony submitted as to the relief sought from the requirement to provide loading spaces where
7 would be required and none are proposed but found that based upon the operational testimony
-4-

that there are already 9 existing doors for loading, that and that requiring additional loading spaces
would only add impervious coverage without a benefit such that the Applicant met the c2
“flexible” standard for granting the relief requested.
8. The Board heard the testimony presented as to the design waiver relief as to the
requirement to install sidewalks and noted that there are no other sidewalks in the area, which is
an industrial area such that enforcing the requirement would only add impervious coverage without
increasing pedestrian connectivity, such that granting the waiver requested was reasonable.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that based upon the record as summarized
herein and the findings by the City of Millville Planning Board that the Application of 600 Orange,
LLC, for approval of an Amended Preliminary and Final Major Site Plan with respect to the
property identified on the Official Tax Map for the City of Millville as Block 574, Lot 1, which is
more commonly known as 600 Orange Street is hereby GRANTED; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that based upon the record as summarized herein and the
findings by the City of Millville Planning Board that the Application of 600 Orange, LLC, the
request for bulk variance relief with respect to the following is hereby GRANTED as follows:
(1) Relief from §30-136C so as to permit no designated loading spaces where 7 are
required;
(2) Relief from §30-137F so as to permit 43 parking stalls where 130 stalls are required;
(3) Relief from §30, the bulk standards for the BE zone, so as to permit the existing, nonconforming side yard facing Orange Street of 17.6 ft. where a 20 ft. setback is required
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that based upon the record as summarized herein and the
findings by the City of Millville Planning Board that the Application of 600 Orange, LLC, the
request for relief from §30-181D1 in the form of a design waiver for relief from the requirement
to install sidewalks is hereby GRANTED; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that based upon the record as summarized herein and the
findings by the City of Millville Planning Board that the Application of 600 Orange, LLC, the
request for the Preliminary and Final Major Site Plan approval with the bulk variances and design
waivers is hereby GRANTED, subject to the following specific conditions as set forth on the
record at the hearing and as summarized herein and is also subject to the following specific
conditions as set forth on the record at the hearing and as summarized herein and is also subject to
the following specific conditions as set forth on the record at the hearing and as summarized herein,
specifically:
1.
The Applicant agreed to satisfy the conditions outlined within the Board
Professionals’ review letters as described herein, unless otherwise satisfied through testimony or
modified during the hearing and as set forth in Section 1h (#1-7).
2.
The Applicant agreed to comply with all other usual and customary conditions as
may be required by the Board, with respect to required approvals by other agencies with
jurisdiction, payment of all required fees, submission of plans and timely payment of escrows.
3.
As a condition of approval, the Applicant acknowledged that it will be required to
obtain all required approvals, make all required revisions and add information or notes to final

-5-

drawings or plans and obtain required approvals, and must conform with all other Code
requirements and pay all required fees for permits, inspections, assessments, and property taxes.
4.
The Applicant has submitted certain plans, drawings, rules, depictions, written
summaries, concept plans, surveys, elevation plans and other tangible things or documents that
were accepted by the Planning Board as part of its Application. Further, its representatives and/or
witnesses have made certain representations, provided testimony, the agreed upon modifications
to the plans, drawings and/or other features, all of which were made at the public hearings and all
of which have been relied upon by the Planning Board in making its findings and determinations.
Should there be any material deviation from said documents, plans, representations, agreements
made, the testimony presented, the modifications to be made, modifications agreed to or
modifications to any of the conditions contained herein and/or otherwise agreed to, then the failure
to comply with those representations, changes and/or agreements shall be deemed a violation of
the approvals granted and the Planning Board may, upon notice to the Applicant and an opportunity
to be heard, elect to rescind its approval.
5.
As a condition of this approval, the Applicant is required to comply with its fees for
inspections and the escrow agreement, if any, with the City of Millville for the payment of the
Board’s professional consultants. No plan shall be processed, no Deeds and/or plats shall be
signed, no permits shall be issued, and no certificate of occupancy shall be granted unless and until
all outstanding professional fees and taxes are paid, including any applicable Affordable Housing
contributions, and an appropriate escrow deposit created to pay for future sums due. The Applicant
agrees to promptly pay any professional staff fees billed, in excess of the required application
escrows, or file a written protest with the City Business Administrator within seven (7) days of
receipt of a final voucher from the City.
6.
Any improvement(s) to be constructed as a result of the Board approving this
application shall be constructed and operated in full compliance with the Uniform Construction
Code, the Code, the Revised Statutes of the State of New Jersey, and any other applicable state,
county, and/or federal law. The Applicant/owner is responsible for obtaining all zoning and/or
building permits and approvals necessary to construct the project/development and the various
improvements, including any permits for the erection of a sign. The Applicant shall obtain all
required approvals from any other county, state, or municipal agency having jurisdiction over the
application, including the Cumberland County Planning Board, Cumberland County Soil and
Water Conservation District, City of Millville Department of Public Works, NJ DEP.
7.
These General Conditions of Approval, and any additional conditions of approval,
if any, shall be binding upon the applicant, the owner, and any successors and/or assigns of them.
ROLL CALL
MEMBER
Stephen R.
Dupnock,
Chairman
Jared Carll,
Vice Chairman
Mayor Dan Dixon

Motion 2nd

YEA NAY

-6-

ABSENT

RECUSED

Commissioner
Carole Cossaboon
Kristine Garton
Larry Malone
Nicholas Makos
Rachel Green
Vacant, Class IV
Vacant, Alt. I
Vacant, Alt. II
CERTIFICATION
I, Dawn Grossman, Secretary of the Planning Board for the City of Millville, Cumberland
County and State of New Jersey, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a
findings and determination of the Board for this Application heard at its meeting held at the City Hall,
12 S. High Street in Millville, NJ 08332 on April 13, 2026 as memorialized by the Resolution adopted
by the Board at its meeting held on May 11, 2026.
___________________________________
DAWN GROSSMAN, SECRETARY
CITY OF MILLVILLE PLANNING BOARD

______________________________________
STEPHEN R. DUPNOCK, CHAIRMAN

-7-

Resolution of the
City of Millville Planning Board
Application No. 08-2026PB
RESOLUTION NO. 09-2026PB
WHEREAS, the Applicant, Orville Peterson, submitted an Application to the City of
Millville Planning Board seeking a Minor Subdivision with bulk variance relief as to the proposed
side yard setback for the proposed Lot 2 and as to pre-existing, non-conforming rear yard setback
for Lot 1, with respect to the property identified on the Municipal Tax Map of the City of Millville
as Block 403, Lots 1 and 2, which is more commonly known as 528 and 530 Crest Avenue; and
WHEREAS, the properties at 528 Crest Road and at 530 Crest Road are currently
developed with a single-family home and accessory structures in the rear and side yards; and
WHEREAS, the site is located in the MDR (Medium Density Residential) zone; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant submitted an affidavit of mailing and proof of publication to
the Board, demonstrating that notice of the hearing on the Application seeking approval of a
Subdivision which was provided in a manner which complies with the public notice requirements
of the Municipal Land Use Law (“MLUL”); and
WHEREAS, with respect to the completeness of the Application submissions, the Board’s
Engineer and Planner recommended that the Application be deemed complete for review. Based
upon the submissions and the recommendation of the Board’s professional consultants, the Board
voted affirmatively to deem the Application complete; and
WHEREAS, the Application was considered by the Board at a hearing conducted on April
13, 2026, during which the following documents and submissions were presented:
Submissions and Testimony of Record at the Hearing. In reaching its decision, the Board relied
on the submissions, Exhibits, and witness testimony identified below:
a.

The Applicant’s submissions:

▪ Transmittal Letter, prepared by Matthew Robinson, Esq., of Robinson &
Robinson dated 3-2-26
▪ City of Millville Development Application Form, dated 3-02-26
▪ Development Application Checklist
▪ Request for New Lot Numbers From Tax Assessor
▪ Disclosure Statement, Professional Contact Information, W-9 form
▪ Minor Subdivision Plan, prepared by Bernard Surveying, LLC, David R. Bernard,
P.L.S. dated 9-26-25 (1 sheet)

b. Reports from the Board’s professional consultants and staff:
▪ Planning Review letter dated March 27, 2026 by Christopher N. Dochney, PP,
AICP of CME Associates
▪ Engineering Review memo dated April 7, 2026 by Michelle Nothaft, PE.
c. Exhibits: The following Exhibits were marked at the hearing and entered into
evidence:
Exhibit B-1: Aerial view with the new driveway on the Subdivision Plan
d. Testimony:
The Applicant’s counsel, Matthew Robinson, Esq., of Robinson & Robinson, presented the
Application on behalf of the Applicant corporation, and provided a summary of the Application
and the relief sought, namely approval of the proposed for a lot line adjustment for the purpose of
having an existing masonry building which was on the adjacent lot, be part of his property by
revising the property line between two adjacent lots, both of which are owned by the Applicant.
The Applicant, Orville Peterson, was sworn and testified in support of the Application. He
lives at 528 Crest Road (Lot 2), purchased it 5 years ago and purchased the property at 530 Crest
Road (Lot 1) one year ago, that it has a masonry building already constructed. The Applicant seeks
a lot line adjustment so that the existing masonry building currently on Lot 1 is on the same lot as
his dwelling on Lot 2. The house on Lot 1 is a 2-bedroom house, which has a carport. He agreed
to the condition that he cannot use the existing masonry building for any business use. The
Applicant testified that he plans to renovate the existing structure on 530 Crest Road and use it as
a rental property. Mr. Peterson confirmed there is sufficient vehicular access for his dwelling and
confirmed that he did pave over the top of an existing concrete driveway using asphalt. He testified
that he installed a 30ft. by 40 ft. driveway with a 12 ft wide drive aisle. In response to a question,
he testified that the receptacles noted on the survey are the septic tanks and described the distances
between them, noting that with the subdivision, there is sufficient space for a septic tank to
accommodate both dwellings.
e. Public comment. None.
f. Comments by the Board’s Professional consultants:
Ms. Nothaft summarized the Engineering comments, the Applicant agreed to add or correct
certain notes or designations on the plans including the correct zoning designation. She noted that
the Applicant does not propose to install a new structure, so a grading plan is not required. The
structure is not within 5 ft. of septic tank for Lot 1. The Board’s professionals noted that the
Applicant needs bulk variance relief to allow a 5.4 ft. side yard setback in order to have sufficient
area to serve the septic tank. There was a discussion that Lot 1 is 530 Crest Rd and proposed Lot
2 is 528 Crest Road. There was a discussion that the four existing structures comply with the
height restrictions of the Code of less than 35 ft. for dwellings and less than 20 ft. for accessory

-2-

structures. The Applicant confirmed that the Subdivision would be accomplished by Deed and the
form and substance of the Deeds are subject to the approval of the Board’s professionals.
There was a discussion of the location of the septic tank on Lot 1, Mr. Robinson stated that
the tank is a seepage pit, which has passed Health Department inspection. It was noted that both
properties have well water. The septic tank is subject to County Planning Board approval.
g. Comments and questions by the Board:
Exhibit B-1, an aerial view of the site with the proposed new driveway noted on
the Subdivision Plan was identified by the Board.
h. Specific conditions agreed to by the Applicant at the hearing: The Applicant
agreed to the following revisions to the design plan and the following conditions for approval, all
of which were material to the Board’s determination:
1. As a condition of approval, the Applicant is required to make all changes to the plot
plan and/or Subdivision documents to be submitted and filed consistent with the Engineering and
Planning Review letter dated April 7, 2026, including comments 1, correcting the zoning, adding
an indication on the plans of compliance with the distance requirement for separation of the septic
tank or field and outside agency approval for entities exercising jurisdiction over the property.
2. As a condition of approval, the Applicant is required to make all changes to the plot
plan and/or Subdivision documents to be submitted and filed consistent with the Planning Review
letter dated March 27, 2026, comment 4f.
3. As a condition of approval, the existing masonry building which will be on Lot 2 (528
Crest Road) with the proposed lot line adjustment, is not permitted to be used for business purposes
absent relief from the City’s Zoning or Planning Board in a future application.
4. As a condition of approval, the legal descriptions and form of the Deed to be recorded
to accomplish the Minor Subdivision are to be submitted to the Board’s Planner, Engineer and
Solicitor for review and approval.
5. As a condition of approval, the proposed block and lot numbers shall be assigned or
approved by the Township’s Tax Assessor.
6. If the Subdivision requires the reconfiguration or changes to the Township’s Tax map
and/or formulation of a new Tax map, the Applicant will incur and reimburse the Township for the
cost of such revisions.
7. As a condition of approval, the Applicant acknowledged that it will be required to
obtain all required approvals, make all required revisions and add information or notes to final
drawings or plans and obtain required approvals, and must conform with all other Code
requirements and pay all required fees for permits, inspections, assessments, and property taxes.
8. These specific conditions of approval, and any additional conditions of approval shall
be binding upon the Applicant, the owner, and any successors and/or assigns of them.
Findings; Determination.
1. The Applicant, Orville Peterson, filed an Application seeking a Minor Subdivision as
a lot line adjustment with bulk variance relief for the property identified on the Official Tax Map
-3-

of the City of Millville as Block 403, Lots 1 and 2, which is more commonly known as 528 and
530 Crest Avenue.
2. The property is located in the MDR (Medium Density Residential) District.
3. The Applicant submitted an affidavit of mailing and proof of publication to the Board,
demonstrating that notice of the hearing on the Application seeking approval of a Subdivision,
which was provided in a manner which complies with the public notice requirements of the
Municipal Land Use Law (“MLUL”); and
4. At the hearing on the Application on April 13, 2026, the Board voted affirmatively to
deem that the Application was complete.
5. The Applicant presented competent testimony as to the burden of proof for the relief to
permit certain pre-existing, non-conforming conditions to be permitted to continue because it
would be a hardship to gain conformance for the rear yard setback, finding that the non-conformity
of the rear yard setback was a de minimis non-conforming condition of less than 1 ft.
6. The Applicant presented competent testimony as to the burden of proof for the bulk
variance relief to permit a side yard of 5.4 ft. for Lot 2 where the minimum setback is 10 ft., but
the presence of the septic pit or tank necessitates the deviation and there is no other feasible
location for this feature, such that it represented a better planning alternative, promotes the public
welfare and the positives substantially outweigh any negatives as there is no negative effect on
other properties in the neighborhood and does not impair the intent of the Zoning Ordinance or
Zone plan.
7. The Applicant presented competent testimony as to the burden of proof for granting the
proposed Subdivision which is to be accomplished by filing the requisite Deeds, subject to the
conditions as stated at the hearing and incorporated herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that based upon the record as summarized
herein and the findings by the City of Millville Planning Board that the Application of Orville
Peterson, seeking bulk variance relief from §30, Attachment 1, to allow the continuation of the
pre-existing, non-conforming condition as to the rear yard setback of 34.3 ft. for Lot 1 where a
minimum rear yard setback is 35 ft. is required, is hereby GRANTED; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that based upon the record as summarized herein and the
findings by the City of Millville Planning Board that the Application for relief from §30,
Attachment 1, to permit a side yard of 5.4 ft. for the revised Lot 2, where a minimum side yard
setback of 10 ft. is required; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that based upon the record as summarized herein and the
findings by the City of Millville Planning Board, that the Application seeking approval of a Minor
Subdivision as a lot line adjustment as to the property identified on the Official Tax Map of the
City of Millville as Block 403, Lots 1 and 2, which is more commonly known as 528 and 530 Crest
Avenue is hereby GRANTED; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that based upon the record as summarized herein and the
findings by the City of Millville Planning Board that the Application of Orville Peterson, seeking
approval of a Minor Subdivision as a lot line adjustment and the bulk variance relief as specified
herein as to the property identified on the Official Tax Map of the City of Millville as Block 403,
Lots 1 and 2, which is more commonly known as 528 and 530 Crest Avenue is hereby GRANTED
-4-

subject to the following specific conditions as set forth on the record at the hearing and as
summarized herein:
1.
The Applicant agrees to satisfy the conditions outlined within the Board
Professionals’ review letters as described herein, unless otherwise satisfied through testimony or
modified during the hearing and as set forth in Section 1g (#1-8).
2.
The Applicant agreed to comply with all other usual and customary conditions as
may be required by the Board, with respect to required approvals by other agencies with
jurisdiction, payment of all required fees, submission of plans and timely payment of escrows.
3.
As a condition of approval, the Applicant acknowledged that it will be required to
obtain all required approvals, make all required revisions and add information or notes to final
drawings or plans and obtain required approvals, and must conform with all other Code
requirements and pay all required fees for permits, inspections, assessments, and property taxes.
4.
The Applicant has submitted certain plans, drawings, rules, depictions, written
summaries, concept plans, surveys, elevation plans and other tangible things or documents that
were accepted by the Planning Board as part of its Application. Further, its representatives and/or
witnesses have made certain representations, provided testimony, the agreed upon modifications
to the plans, drawings and/or other features, all of which were made at the public hearings and all
of which have been relied upon by the Planning Board in making its findings and determinations.
Should there be any material deviation from said documents, plans, representations, agreements
made, the testimony presented, the modifications to be made, modifications agreed to or
modifications to any of the conditions contained herein and/or otherwise agreed to, then the failure
to comply with those representations, changes and/or agreements shall be deemed a violation of
the approvals granted and the Planning Board may, upon notice to the Applicant and an opportunity
to be heard, elect to rescind its approval.
5.
As a condition to this approval applicant is required to comply with its fees for
inspections and the escrow agreement, if any, with the City of Millville for the payment of the
Board’s professional consultants. No plan shall be processed, no Deeds and/or plats shall be
signed, no permits shall be issued, and no certificate of occupancy shall be granted unless and until
all outstanding professional fees and taxes are paid, including any applicable Affordable Housing
contributions, and an appropriate escrow deposit created to pay for future sums due. The Applicant
agrees to promptly pay any professional staff fees billed, in excess of the required application
escrows, or file a written protest with the City Business Administrator within seven (7) days of
receipt of a final voucher from the City.
6.
Any improvement(s) to be constructed as a result of the Board approving this
application shall be constructed and operated in full compliance with the Uniform Construction
Code, the Code, the Revised Statutes of the State of New Jersey, and any other applicable state,
county, and/or federal law. The Applicant/owner is responsible for obtaining all zoning and/or
building permits and approvals necessary to construct the project/development and the various
improvements, including any permits for the erection of a sign. The Applicant shall obtain all
required approvals from any other county, state, or municipal agency having jurisdiction over the
application.
7.
These General Conditions of Approval, and any additional conditions of approval,
if any, shall be binding upon the applicant, the owner, and any successors and/or assigns of them.

-5-

ROLL CALL
MEMBER
Stephen R.
Dupnock,
Chairman
Jared Carll,
Vice Chairman
Mayor Dan Dixon
Commissioner
Carole Cossaboon
Kristine Garton
Larry Malone
Nicholas Makos
Rachel Green
Vacant, Class IV
Vacant, Alt. I
Vacant, Alt. II

Motion 2nd

YEA NAY

ABSENT

RECUSED

CERTIFICATION
I, Dawn Grossman, Secretary of the Planning Board for the City of Millville, Cumberland
County and State of New Jersey, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a
findings and determination of the Board for this Application heard at its meeting held at the City Hall,
12 S. High Street in Millville, NJ 08332 on April 13, 2026 as memorialized by the Resolution adopted
by the Board at its meeting held on May 11, 2026.

___________________________________
DAWN GROSSMAN, SECRETARY
CITY OF MILLVILLE PLANNING BOARD

______________________________________
STEPHEN R. DUPNOCK, CHAIRMAN

-6-

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

P.O.B.

I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF
THIS MAP AND LAND SURVEY DATED 10/20/25 MEETS THE MINIMUM
SURVEY DETAIL REQUIREMENTS, WITH OUTBOUND CORNERS MARKED,
AS PROMULGATED BY THE STATE BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL
ENGINEERS AND LAND SURVEYORS AND HAS BEEN MADE UNDER MY
SUPERVISION, AND COMPLIES WITH THE PROVISIONS OF "THE MAP
FILING LAW" AND THAT THE OUTBOUND CORNERS MARKERS AS
SHOWN HAVE BEEN FOUND OR SET.
I DO FURTHER CERTIFY THAT THE MONUMENTS AS DESIGNATED AND
SHOWN HEREON HAVE BEEN SET.

E WING

ASSOCIATES
ENGINEERS AND SURVEYORS

ERIK F. VALENTIN
N.J. LAND SURVEYOR LICENSE No. 43394

900B No. DELSEA DRIVE, P.O. BOX 145, CLAYTON, N.J. 08312
PHONE: (856) 881-4931

March 27, 2026
City of Millville Planning Board
12 S. High Street
Millville, New Jersey 08332
Re:

Lacivita – Planning Review #1
Minor Subdivision
Block 1 Lot 9
234 Sugarman Avenue
Our File No. MVCP001.H01

1. Summary
The site is located at 234 Sugarman Avenue between Irving Street and W Main Street. The 8acre property currently contains two - 2-story single-family homes. The applicant proposes to
subdivide the site to create two new residential lots measuring 2 acres (Lot 9.01) and 6 acres (Lot
9). The proposed subdivision requires several bulk or ‘c’ variances for insufficient lot frontage,
parking, front yard setbacks and side yard setbacks, and side yard setbacks for accessory
structures.

City of Millville Planning Board
234 Sugarman Avenue
Planning Review #1

March 27, 2026
Our File No. MVCP001.H01
Page 2

2. Property and Project Description
The subject site is located on Sugarman Avenue between Irving Street and W Main Street. The
property is an 8-acre lot currently containing a +/- 1,152 square foot single family home, as well
as an additional residential dwelling to the south of the property. The buildings are served by their
own driveway and a parking area beside the building on the proposed Lot 9. There is also a pool,
decks, a two-story metal frame building, and shed to the rear of the existing single-family home,
as well as fencing and around the pool area on Lot 9.
The applicant proposes subdividing the existing lot (Lot 9) into two lots, that will each contain
residential uses as the principal use and associated accessory uses. No improvements appear to
be proposed to the site or buildings at this time.
Access to the proposed Lot 9 and Lot 9.01 will be provided via the existing driveways at 234
Sugarman Avenue.
The surrounding area includes predominately woodlands, agricultural uses, and large lot single
family homes. Residential properties border the site along the side and rear yards.
3. Zoning
The subject property is located in the Low-Density Residential (LDR)District.
Permitted uses
•

Single-family detached dwelling, Agricultural uses, farm with farmstead, forestry and
wildlife conservation areas, passive recreational use, are permitted as principal uses.
o

•

The existing lot is non-compliant with the City’s zoning code. The lot has two singlefamily dwellings, which is strictly prohibited per section §30-128 of the City’s
Zoning Code and not expressly permitted in the LDR district.

Accessory buildings, structures or uses are permitted, provided they are located on the
same lot as the principal use or buildings and are customarily incidental and subordinate
to the principal use of the land or buildings.

Bulk standards and requirements

H:\Legacy\Howell-FS1\SEC\Millville\Project Files\MVCP001.H01 - Lacivita\Review Letters\26-02-10 Planning Review Letter #1.docx

City of Millville Planning Board
234 Sugarman Avenue
Planning Review #1

March 27, 2026
Our File No. MVCP001.H01
Page 3
LDR District Bulk Standards

Required Existing Conform Proposed Conform Proposed
/
Block 1
Block 1
Block 1
Permitted
Lot 9
Lot 9
Lot 9.01

Conform

Min Lot
Area

2 acres

8 acres

C

6 acres

C

2 acres

C

Min Lot
Frontage

200 feet

203.79
feet

C

113.79
feet

V

90.00 feet

V

Min Lot
Depth

400 feet

1,744.88
feet

C

1,744.88
feet

C

968.00
feet

C

Min Front
Yard

75 feet

36.33
feet

ENC

39.53 feet

V

36.33 feet

V

Min Rear
Yard

75 feet

1,654.66
feet

C

1,654.66
feet

C

894.68
feet

C

Min Side
Yard

40 feet

25.01
feet

ENC

32.74 feet

V

25.01 feet

V

Max
Height

35 feet

< 35
feet

C

< 35 feet

C

25 feet

C

Max Lot
Coverage

25%

3.8%

C

4.3%

C

2.5%

C

Accessory Uses
Min Rear
Yard

30

1,470
feet

C

1,470 feet

C

N/A

C

Min Side
Yard

20

28.4 feet

C

3.9 feet

V

N/A

C

Max
Height

20 feet

< 20
feet

C

< 20 feet

< 20 feet

N/A

C

(C) = Conforming (V) = Variance; (ENC) = Existing Non-Conformity
Off-street parking and loading requirements
•

Residential uses are required to comply with the number of parking spaces outlined in the
Residential Site Improvement Standards (RSIS). The applicant has not stated the number

H:\Legacy\Howell-FS1\SEC\Millville\Project Files\MVCP001.H01 - Lacivita\Review Letters\26-02-10 Planning Review Letter #1.docx

City of Millville Planning Board
234 Sugarman Avenue
Planning Review #1

March 27, 2026
Our File No. MVCP001.H01
Page 4

of bedrooms per dwelling unit. Therefore, 2.5 parking spaces per dwelling unit are
required.
•

The applicant has not specified the number of parking spaces to be provided on-site. A
review of available online imagery and the survey provided of the site suggests that Lot 9
may accommodate approximately three parking spaces, while Lot 9.01 may accommodate
approximately two parking spaces.

4. Variances and Waivers
It appears that the following variances and design exceptions or waivers from the City land use
and development regulations may be required:
Variances:
a. §30- Attachment 1 Lot Frontage – The required width for the lot frontage is 200 feet,
whereas the proposed Lot 9.01 provides 90 feet of frontage and Lot 9 provides 113.79
feet of frontage.
b. §30- Attachment 1 Minimum Front Yard Setback – The required minimum front yard
setback is 75 feet, whereas setbacks of 36.3 feet exist on the proposed lot 9.01 and
setbacks of 39.5 feet exist on the proposed Lot 9. These are existing non-conforming
conditions.
c. §30- Attachment 1 Minimum Side Yard Setbacks – The required setback is 40 feet,
whereas a side yard setback of 25.01 feet is provided on Lot 9.01 and a side yard setback
of 32.7 feet is provided on Lot 9. These are existing non-conforming conditions.
d. §30- Attachment 1 Minimum Side Yard Setbacks (Accessory Structures) – The
required minimum side yard setbacks for Lot 9 are 20 feet, whereas the provided side yard
setback is 3.9 feet on Lot 9.
e. §30-137F Parking – 2.5 parking spaces are required, while Lot 9.01 may accommodate
approximately two parking spaces. This is an existing condition.
5. Planning Comments
a. The applicant should discuss the proposed project, addressing the general scale and
scope of improvements proposed for the site. Testimony should be provided addressing
any anticipated changes of use on the site.
b. Several bulk or ‘c’ variances are required of the application, for insufficient lot frontage,
parking, front yard setbacks and side yard setbacks, and side yard setbacks for accessory
structures. However, we note that the insufficient front yard setbacks and side yard

H:\Legacy\Howell-FS1\SEC\Millville\Project Files\MVCP001.H01 - Lacivita\Review Letters\26-02-10 Planning Review Letter #1.docx

City of Millville Planning Board
234 Sugarman Avenue
Planning Review #1

March 27, 2026
Our File No. MVCP001.H01
Page 5

setbacks are existing non-conforming conditions. The applicant must satisfy both the
positive and negative criteria for each of these variances as well:
i.

Positive Criteria: The applicant must show that either there is an undue hardship
(practical difficulty) in strictly conforming to the code that is caused by the unique
conditions of the property (c-1 hardship), or that the proposed conditions represent
a preferable alternative to conforming to the standards of the code, that the
purposes of zoning will be advanced, and that the benefits of the deviation would
outweigh any detrimental impacts (c-2 flexible).

ii.

Negative Criteria: The applicant must show that the variance can be granted
without substantial detriment to the public good, and without substantially impairing
the intent and purpose of the zone plan.

c. The application remediates an existing non-conforming condition involving two principal
structures on a single lot in the LDR district. The proposed subdivision would place each
residential dwelling onto a separate lot. This action would bring the property closer to
conformance with the City’s Zoning Code.
d. A variance may be required for insufficient parking. A total of 2.5 parking spaces are
required, whereas it appears that only two parking spaces are available on proposed Lot
9.01. The applicant should provide clarification regarding the number of parking spaces
currently accommodated within the existing paved driveway area where Lot 9.01 is
proposed.
e. The applicant should provide testimony regarding the number of bedrooms within each
dwelling unit. As the application does not specify the number of bedrooms, RSIS require
that the parking standards applicable to a four-bedroom single-family dwelling be assumed
under these circumstances.
i.

f.

According to RSIS, the parking requirements for single-family detached housing
are at the following per bedroom:
•

2 Bedroom 1.5,

•

3 Bedroom: 2.0

The applicant should address the use of the accessory structures on the site.

g. We defer any comment on grading, drainage, utilities, or stormwater management to the
Board Engineer.

H:\Legacy\Howell-FS1\SEC\Millville\Project Files\MVCP001.H01 - Lacivita\Review Letters\26-02-10 Planning Review Letter #1.docx

City of Millville Planning Board
234 Sugarman Avenue
Planning Review #1

March 27, 2026
Our File No. MVCP001.H01
Page 6

Should you have any questions or require any additional information with regard to the above
matter, please do not hesitate to contact this office.
Sincerely,
CME Associates

Christopher N. Dochney, PP, AICP
Zoning Board Planner

cc:

Lou Garty, Esq. – Board Solicitor
Michelle Nothaft, PE. – Board Engineer
Itzel Torres-Velazquez – City Zoning Official
Charlotte Lacivita – Applicant
Erik, F. Valentin, PLS – Applicant’s Surveyor

H:\Legacy\Howell-FS1\SEC\Millville\Project Files\MVCP001.H01 - Lacivita\Review Letters\26-02-10 Planning Review Letter #1.docx

City of Millville Planning Board
234 Sugarman Avenue
Planning Review #1

March 27, 2026
Our File No. MVCP001.H01
Page 7

The following information has been received in support of the above-referenced application.
•

Zoning Board of Adjustment Development Application form with the necessary
associated documents dated January 30, 2026.

•

One (1) page survey drawing prepared by Ewing Associates dated October 20, 2025.

H:\Legacy\Howell-FS1\SEC\Millville\Project Files\MVCP001.H01 - Lacivita\Review Letters\26-02-10 Planning Review Letter #1.docx

Planning Board Review – Engineering Report
Parcel:
Applicant:
Owner:
Attorney:
Zone:
Action Sought:
Street Address:
Application #:

Report Date: 05/04/2026
Meeting Date: 05/11/2026

Block 1, Lot 9 | Tax Map Sheet 1
Charlotte Lacivita | 234 Sugarman Avenue, Millville, NJ 08332
Charlotte Lacivita | 234 Sugarman Avenue, Millville, NJ 08332
N/A
LDR – Low Density Residential
Minor Subdivision with Bulk Variance
234 Sugarman Avenue
Application #03-2026PB

The following documents were provided and reviewed for the above referenced application:
Documents Reviewed










City of Millville Development Application Form, dated January 30, 2026
City of Millville Tax Account Detail Inquiry, dated February 9, 2026
Professional Contact Information
Escrow Agreement, dated February 9, 2026
Disclosure Statement
Plat and Plan Conformity and Details, dated November 24, 2025
Acknowledgement of Water/Sewer Connection Fees, dated February 9, 2026
Form W-9, dated February 9, 2026
Proposed Minor Subdivision Plan, prepared by Erik F. Valentin, PLS, for Ewing
Associates, dated October 20, 2025, containing 1 sheet

Existing & Proposed Conditions
Block 1, Lot 9 is located on the western side of Sugarman Avenue within the Low Density
Residential District. Lot 9 has 203.79 feet of frontage along Sugarman Avenue with a lot depth of
approximately 1,676 feet. Lot 9 is approximately 8 acres (348,560 square feet) in size and mostly
rectangular in shape. The site contains a two-story dwelling with two decks, pool, concrete
sidewalks, wooden walkways, metal frame building, shed, solar panels, four smaller sheds in
varying materials, and a bituminous driveway. The site also contains an additional one-story
framed dwelling, two decks, chain fencing, pavers and another bituminous driveway. The existing
residences are serviced by private well and septic.
The Minor Subdivision proposes to subdivide a 2-acre (87,120 square feet) portion from Lot 9 to
become Proposed Lot 9.01, with a frontage of 90 feet and depth of 968 feet. Proposed Lot 9 will
be reduced to 6 acres (261,440 square feet) in size, with a frontage of 113.79 feet.
Engineering Comments
1. The Minor Subdivision Plan shows the Owner/Applicant listed with the incorrect Block
number of 28, whereas Block 1 is correct.
-1-

2. If the Board acts favorably on the Minor Subdivision, the following items should be
submitted for review prior to construction on the new lots:
•

If any improvements are proposed, an Individual Lot Grading Plan should be
submitted showing any and all proposed construction and all improvements with
details including depressed curbs, driveway aprons, lot drainage and water and sewer
connections, which shall meet all building code, stormwater, and City ordinances. It
is imperative that the Applicant follows the City stormwater ordinance and does not
negatively impact other neighbors with stormwater runoff from their property onto
adjacent properties.

This application may be subject to review and approval by the following outside agencies:
Cumberland County Soil and Water Conservation District
City of Millville Department of Public Works
Cumberland County Planning Board
This office reserves the right to make additional comments pending the receipt of any revised
plans, reports, correspondence, and testimony of the applicant or professionals employed by the
applicant. The Applicant’s Surveyor and Engineer are advised that all plan revisions must be
detailed in a cover letter and a revision date must be included on the plan with every revision.

-2-