1 Township of Millburn Minutes of the Zoning Board of Adjustment January 12, 2026 A regular meeting of the Township of Millburn Zoning Board of Adjustment was held on Monday, January 12, 2026 at 7:00 PM at Millburn Township Board of Education, Education Center Building, 434 Millburn Avenue, Millburn, New Jersey. Eileen Davitt opened the meeting by reading Section 5 of the Open Public Meetings Act. Board Attorney, Robert Simon, administered the oath of office to David Bradford and Craig Ploetner. The following members were present for the meeting: David Bradford Joseph Caulfield Jessica Glatt Craig Ploetner Nilmino Roberts Gary Rosen Regina Truitt Beth Zall Also present: Robert Simon, Board Attorney Eric Fishman, Court Reporter Eileen Davitt, Zoning Officer/Board Secretary ORGANIZATION OF THE BOARD Eileen Davitt asked for a nomination for Chair of the Zoning Board. A motion to nominate Craig Ploetner for Chair was made by Jessica Glatt, seconded by Beth Zall, and with no other nominations made, carried with a roll-call vote as follows: David Bradford – yes Joseph Caulfield – yes Jessica Glatt – yes Craig Ploetner – yes Gary Rosen – yes Regina Truitt – yes Beth Zall – yes� 2 The meeting was turned over to Chair, Craig Ploetner, who made a motion to nominate Jessica Glatt for Vice Chair. A second was made by David Bradford and with no other nominations made, the motion carried with the following roll-call vote: David Bradford – yes Joseph Caulfield – yes Jessica Glatt – yes Craig Ploetner – yes Gary Rosen – yes Regina Truitt – yes Beth Zall – yes A motion to appoint Robert Simon as Board Attorney was made by Joseph Caulfield, seconded by Craig Ploetner, and carried with the following roll-call vote: David Bradford – yes Joseph Caulfield – yes Gary Rosen – yes Regina Truitt – yes Beth Zall – yes Jessica Glatt – yes Craig Ploetner – yes A motion to appoint Eileen Davitt as Board Secretary was made by Joseph Caulfield, seconded by Jessica Glatt, and carried with the following roll-call vote. David Bradford – yes Joseph Caulfield – yes Gary Rosen – yes Regina Truitt – yes Beth Zall – yes Jessica Glatt – yes Craig Ploetner – yes� 3 ANNUAL NOTICE Upon a motion made by Beth Zall, seconded by Regina Truitt, and with a unanimous roll-call vote, the following resolution of 2026 (January—June) annual notice was adopted: RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PUBLIC HEARING DATES, LOCATION AND TIME FOR THE YEAR 2026 (January – June) BE IT RESOLVED by the Zoning Board of Adjustment of the Township of Millburn in the County of Essex, as follows: 1. WHEREAS certain Public Meetings of the Zoning Board of Adjustment of the Township of Millburn for the year 2026 were scheduled and noticed to be held at Millburn Board of Education, Education Center Building, 434 Millburn Avenue at 7:00 p.m. (Prevailing Time) on the following dates: Month Open Meeting Date January (2026) 12* *reorganization & regular February 2 March 2 16 April 13 27 May 11 June 8 22 2. WHEREAS the Secretary to the Zoning Board of Adjustment was directed to forward said annual schedule of meetings to The ITEM of Millburn and Short Hills and The Star Ledger, said newspapers being hereby designated to receive notices of public meetings pursuant to the Open Meetings Act (Ch. 231, P.L. 1975). Formal action may be taken on each of the dates listed above. Special meetings may be held as and when necessary, as determined in the Board’s sole discretion, with notice of such meetings to be given in accordance with the Open Public Meetings Act. 3. That the Secretary to the Zoning Board of Adjustment be directed to forward this revised and amended annual schedule of meetings to The ITEM of Millburn and Short Hills and The Star Ledger, said newspapers being hereby designated to receive notices of public meetings pursuant to the Open Meetings Act (Ch. 231, P.L. 1975). 4. That this Resolution shall take effect immediately. I, Eileen Davitt, Secretary to the Zoning Board of Adjustment of the Township of Millburn, in the County of Essex, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy� 4 of a Resolution duly adopted by the said Zoning Board of Adjustment on the 12th day of January, 2026. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A motion to approve the minutes of December 8, 2025, was made by Beth Zall, seconded by Gary Rosen, and carried with a unanimous voice vote. MEMORIALIZATIONS Cal#4040-25, Mark Pantirer, 1 Moraine Plance With a motion made by David Bradford, a second by Jessica Glatt, and a roll-call vote as follows: David Bradford – yes Joseph Caulfield – yes Regina Truitt – yes Beth Zall – yes Jessica Glatt – yes the following memorializing resolution was adopted: MARC & SHANA PANTIRER CAL. NO. 4040-25 BLOCK 3201, LOT 1 January 12, 2026 Ms. Chairperson, I move the adoption of the following resolution memorializing the granting of variance relief requested by the applicants, Marc and Shana Pantirer (the “Applicants”), in Calendar No. 4040-25 to permit the construction and installation of a pool, patio, pergola and related pool equipment on property located at 1 Moraine Place, Short Hills, New Jersey, and designated as Lot 1, Block 3201, on the Official Tax Map of the Township of Millburn. RESOLUTION WHEREAS the Millburn Township Zoning Board of Adjustment (hereinafter the “Board”) held a public hearing according to law on November 3, 2025 as to Calendar No. 4040- 25 to permit the construction and installation of a pool, patio, pergola and related pool equipment on property located at 1 Moraine Place, Short Hills, New Jersey, and designated as Lot 1, Block 3201, on the Official Tax Map of the Township of Millburn; and WHEREAS the Board does hereby set forth the following findings of fact, circumstances, reasons, and conclusions: 1. At the November 3, 2025 hearing, the application and service of notice were found to be in order. The Applicants appeared without council, and, along with Allison Canfield,� 5 the Chairperson of the Township’s Historic Preservation Commission, Zachary Goldstein, the Applicants’ licensed architect, and Richard Keller, the Applicants’ civil engineer and professional planner, provided sworn testimony on the application. There was no public opposition to the application. 2. The Applicants are the owners of the subject property, which contains a single￾family dwelling and associated site improvements, located in the Township’s R-3 Zone District (the “R-3 Zone”). The Applicants propose to construct and install a new pool, patio, pergola and associated pool equipment on property located at 1 Moraine Place, Short Hills, New Jersey, and designated as Lot 1, Block 3102, on the Official Tax Map of the Township of Millburn. 3. At the November 3, 2025 hearing, the Board received and considered the following additional documents submitted in support of the application: a. A map of the Short Hills Historic District circa 1928, entered into evidence as Exhibit A-1, on November 3, 2025; and b. A rendering of the dwelling (from Western Drive), created in February 2025 by Zachary Goldstein, the Applicants’ licensed architect, entered into evidence as Exhibit A-2, on November 3, 2025. 4. The proposed construction, as originally presented to the Board, would result in accessory structures in a front yard, when accessory structures are not permitted in same; a six (6) foot fence in a front yard, when six (6) foot front yard fences are not permitted; and mechanical equipment in front yard, when mechanical equipment is not permitted in same in the R-3 Zone. Therefore, variance relief is required. 5. Marc Pantirer, one of the Applicants, introduced the application, testifying that the subject property is approximately 2.46 acres (104,822 square feet) and located at the northeasterly intersection of Western Drive & Moraine Place. He testified that the subject property contains a historic 2-story stone dwelling that was constructed in or around 1900, and is a Designated Site within the Short Hills Park Historic District. Mr. Pantirer testified further that the functional front of the historic home faces away from the intersection, with the rear of the home facing onto the front yard along Western Drive. He stated that he is seeking variance relief to place an in-ground swimming pool with a pool terrace (patio), covered pergola, pool equipment and a pool fence at the rear of the dwelling, which is defined as a front yard by the Township’s Development Regulations and Zoning Ordinance (the “DRO”). Mr. Pantirer also noted for the Board that the Applicants are also proposing a small addition to the principal structure to act as a cabana/bathroom for the proposed pool; however, he believes said addition does not require any variance relief. Finally, Mr. Pantirer testified that the Applicants’ proposal was submitted to the Historic Preservation Commission, which provided the Applicants with the necessary Certificate of Appropriateness. 6. Richard Keller, testifying as the Applicants’ civil engineer, confirmed that the lot is approximately 2.46 acres and located within the R-3 Zone. He testified that the existing � 6 dwelling is a stone building located within the Township’s Historic District, where the “functional” front of the dwelling is located in the “uphill” rear of the subject property. 7. Allison Canfield, Chairperson of the Township’s Historic Preservation Commission, introduced Exhibit A-1, which shows the location of the subject property within the Historic District (circa 1928). She testified that Western Drive, which was created much later than the existing dwelling, was merely an easement at that time. Ms. Canfield testified further that the existing dwelling on the subject property was gutted approximately ten (10) years ago, whereupon the rehabilitation of same won awards. 8. Richard Keller, the Applicants’ civil engineer and professional planner, returned to testify further, introduced Exhibit A-2, which show the proposed improvements, and testified that the existing dwelling is not be visible from Western Drive. He stated that there is approximately a 16-foot grade change between Western Drive and white pines on the subject property, with another five (5) foot grade change up to the house. He testified that the steep slopes in the front of the dwelling go up, where a steep embankment proceeds to the east. With regard to the plans submitted to the Board prior to the hearing, Mr. Keller testified that the green areas reflect the location of steep slopes in excess of 20%. In that regard, Mr. Keller testified that the Applicants are not able to construct or install the proposed improvements on a steep slope. Mr. Keller testified further that, likewise, the dwelling facing the rear of the subject property creates an issue as the Applicants need to place all of the proposed improvements in the front yard. Mr. Keller testified that the Applicants will be required to remove trees within the steep slope area, however, a proposed comprehensive landscape plan is proposed to make the buffer more dense, which will be historically appropriate with various sizes of plants and a variety of species on both sides of proposed fence. After reviewing the requested variance relief with the Board, Mr. Keller testified that the functional front of the historic home faces away from the intersection, with the rear of the home facing onto the front yard of Western Drive. He stated that the dwelling on the subject property sits on a plateau that was created in or around 1900 when the home was constructed along Western Drive, where there is an approximately 40-foot wide swath of steeply sloping lands, rising approximately 18 feet above same. He stated that the relatively flat plateau area extends back approximately 130 feet and will contain a lawn area. He testified that to the north of the dwelling there is an approximately 140-foot deep area containing steep slopes up to the rear property line. Mr. Keller stated that, based upon the existing topography and the location and orientation of the lawfully existing dwelling, the only functional location for a pool and associated amenities is between the house and Western Drive. Finally, he stated that, with the proposed improvements, the subject property will still remain “underdeveloped.” Thereafter, Mr. Keller testified that, in his opinion, the Applicants’ proposal advances the historic fabric of the Short Hills Park Historic District, while meeting all other bulk standards set forth in the DRO. Mr. Keller testified further as to the goals of the Master Plan, one of which is to protect historic dwellings, while also finding that front yard pools and fences are not uncommon the Short Hills Park Historic District. Finally, Mr. Keller testified that there will be a minor disturbance of steep slopes, while the proposed six (6) foot fence will be constructed of aluminum, with enough vegetation to screen the fence, while creating minimal, if any, sound impacts due to the elevation of the subject property.� 7 9. N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70c(1) states: Where: (a) by reason of exceptional narrowness, shallowness or shape of a specific piece of property, or (b) by reason of exceptional topographic conditions or physical features uniquely affecting a specific piece of property, or (c) by reason of an extraordinary and exceptional situation uniquely affecting a specific piece of property or the structures lawfully existing thereon, the strict application of any regulation pursuant to article 8 [C.40:55D-62 et seq.] of this act would result in peculiar and exceptional practical difficulties to, or exceptional and undue hardship upon, the developer of such property, grant, upon an application or an appeal relating to such property, a variance from such strict application of such regulation so as to relieve such difficulties or hardship[.] 10. N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70c(2) allows the Board to grant variance relief in circumstances where a deviation from the Zoning Ordinances would advance the purposes of the Municipal Land Use Law, N.J.S.A. 40:55D-1 to -163 (the “MLUL”), and the benefits of the deviation would substantially outweigh any detriment. 11. N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70 further states “[n]o variance or other relief may be granted under the terms of this section, including a variance or other relief involving an inherently beneficial use, without a showing that such variance or other relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and will not substantially impair the intent and the purpose of the zone plan and Zoning Ordinance” (the so-called “negative criteria”). 12. The Board finds that the Applicants have satisfied the statutory criteria of N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70c(1) and concludes that it is appropriate to grant the bulk variance relief requested by the Applicants to permit the construction and installation of a pool, patio, pergola and associated pool equipment in a front yard. The need for such variance relief is related to existing conditions affecting the subject property and the location and orientation of the existing structures thereon, as set forth above and contained in the application materials. Specifically, the subject property’s existing conditions, including the location of existing structures and the orientation of same, along with the topography thereon are hardships specific to same. The Board finds these conditions to be extraordinary and exceptional conditions affecting the property and the structures thereon, which result in practical difficulties and undue hardship to the Applicants. 13. The Board further finds that the Applicants have satisfied the statutory criteria as required by N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70c(2) for the requested variance relief to permit the proposed construction, as numerous purposes of the MLUL, specifically, N.J.S.A. 40:55D-2, are advanced by the application – namely, subsection (a) to encourage the appropriate use of lands in a manner that will promote the public health, safety and welfare; subsection (c) providing sufficient light and space in appropriate locations; and, subsection (i) to promote a desirable visual environment, for the reasons set forth above and contained in the application materials. The Board finds that the application’s proposed construction is consistent with the character of the subject neighborhood, while improving overall functionality of the Applicants’ property. The Board finds these goals and objectives are furthered by the application’s proposed construction, which fits within the character of the surrounding neighborhood, and that the proposal was tastefully designed.� 8 14. Although the proposed construction requires variance relief, the deviations from the aforementioned requirements can be accomplished without undermining the intent and purpose of the Township Zoning Ordinance or the Master Plan, and can be accommodated by the subject property. The Board concludes that the proposed construction is tasteful and modest, preserves the character of the subject property, and that any negative impact from the proposed improvements is negligible and not a substantial detriment. 15. Therefore, for the reasons stated above and at the hearing, the Board concludes that the positive and negative criteria for variance relief have been met by the Applicants pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70c(1) and c(2), and that the granting of the variance relief requested relating to the proposed construction can be done without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the Zone Plan and Township Zoning Ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED on this 12th day of January, 2026 that the variance relief requested by the Applicants to permit the construction and installation of a pool, patio, pergola and associated pool equipment in a front yard on the property located at 1 Moraine Place, Short Hills, New Jersey, granted by this Board at its meeting of November 3, 2025, is memorialized pursuant to the provisions of N.J.S.A. 40:55D-10g, subject to the following conditions: 1. The Applicants shall apply for a building permit within 365 days from the date of publication of this decision. 2. The Applicants shall be bound to comply with the representations made before this Board by the Applicants and their professionals and fact witnesses at the public hearing, including as set forth in the Board’s findings of fact contained in this resolution. The Board has relied upon such representations in adopting its findings of fact and granting the approvals set forth herein. Such representations are hereby made conditions of such approvals. 3. The Applicants shall remove all debris from the subject premises immediately upon completion of construction and shall maintain the site in reasonable order during construction. 4. The Applicants shall comply with all other rules, regulations and requirements affecting development in the Township, County and State. CLERK CERTIFICATION I, Eileen Davitt, Secretary of the Zoning Board of Adjustment of the Township of Millburn, County of Essex, State of New Jersey, hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and exact copy of a Resolution adopted at the meeting of the Zoning Board of Adjustment of the Township of Millburn held on the 12th day of January, 2026.� 9 Cal#4050-25, Shilpika Dhakal/Guarav KC, 22 Hobart Avenue, Short Hills With a motion made by Regina Truitt, a second by David Bradford, and a roll-call vote as follows: David Bradford – yes Joseph Caulfield – yes Regina Truitt – yes Beth Zall – yes Jessica Glatt – yes the following memorializing resolution was adopted: SHILPIKA DHAKAL & GUARAV KC CAL. NO. 4050-25 BLOCK 1201, LOT 4 January 12, 2026 Ms. Chairperson, I move the adoption of the following resolution memorializing the granting of variance relief requested by the applicants, Shilpika Dhakal and Guarav KC (the “Applicants”), in Calendar No. 4050-25 to permit the renovation of the existing dwelling, including the enclosing of two (2) front porches and the addition of a portico to the front of the dwelling on property located at 22 Hobart Avenue, Short Hills, New Jersey, and designated as Lot 4, Block 1201, on the Official Tax Map of the Township of Millburn. RESOLUTION WHEREAS the Millburn Township Zoning Board of Adjustment (hereinafter the “Board”) held a public hearing according to law on November 3, 2025, as to Calendar No. 4050- 25, to permit the renovation of the existing dwelling, including the enclosing of two (2) front decks and the addition of a portico to the front of the dwelling on property located at 22 Hobart Avenue, Short Hills, New Jersey, and designated as Lot 4, Block 1201, on the Official Tax Map of the Township of Millburn; and WHEREAS the Board does hereby set forth the following findings of fact, circumstances, reasons, and conclusions: 1. At the November 3, 2025 hearing, the application and service of notice were found to be in order. The Applicants appeared without counsel, and along with Timothy Klesse, the Applicants’ licensed architect, provided sworn testimony in support of the application. There was no public opposition to the application. 2. At the November 3, 2025 hearing, the Board received and considered the following additional documents submitted in support of the application:� 10 a. A compilation of four (4) photographs of various dwellings along Hobart Avenue, including the Applicants’, entered into evidence as Exhibit A-1, on November 3, 2025. 3. The Applicants are the owners of the subject property, which contains a single￾family residential dwelling, located in the Township’s R-6 Residential Zoning District (the “R-6 Zone”). The Applicants propose renovate the existing dwelling, including the enclosing of two (2) front porches and the addition of a portico to the front of the dwelling on the property located at 22 Hobart Avenue, Short Hills, New Jersey, and designated as Lot 4, Block 1201, on the Official Tax Map of the Township of Millburn. 4. The proposed construction, as originally presented to the Board, would result in: a front yard setback of 18.29 feet, where the existing front yard setback is 22.58 feet, when the prevailing front yard setback in the area is 26.38 feet; and, a combined side yard setback of 23.37 feet (33.3%), where the existing combined side yard setback is 13.98 feet (20%), when the minimum permitted combined side yard setback in the R-6 Zone is 24.5 feet (35%).. Therefore, variance relief is required. 5. Guarav KC, one of the Applicants, introduced the application and providing the Board with a brief description of the Applicants’ proposal. Likewise, he testified further that his parents currently live with the Applicants. 6. Timothy Klesse, the Applicants’ licensed architect, began his testimony with a brief summary of the Applicants proposal, which includes the renovation and updating of the existing single-family residence. He stated that the proposed front yard setback variance is due to the location of the proposed portico and the enclosing of the two (2) existing front porches. Likewise, he testified that the combined side yard setbacks are preexisting nonconformities. After going through the variance relief requested by the Applicants, Mr. Klesse testified that the dwelling is a 1927 Colonial, located within the R-6 Zone. Regarding the renovations themselves, which will include interior renovations, will also include, inter alia, dormers to the rear of the existing dwelling, along with the existing roof being raised ten (10) feet. Referencing Exhibit A￾1, Mr. Klesse testified that the existing dwelling is shorter than those residences located at 18, 20 and 24 Hobart Avenue, while remaining a 2.5 story dwelling even with the proposed improvements. He testified further that, nevertheless, the improved dwelling will look like it is a four (4) story dwelling from the rear. Mr. Klesse testified further that, overall, the renovations to the dwelling will “clean it up” and make it compatible with the neighborhood while maintaining the character of the existing dwelling. Mr. Klesse testified further that the finished renovated dwelling will be 27.9 feet in height, while making the existing four (4) bedroom dwelling into a six (6) bedroom dwelling. 7. N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70c(1) states: Where: (a) by reason of exceptional narrowness, shallowness or shape of a specific piece of property, or (b) by reason of exceptional topographic conditions or physical features uniquely affecting a specific piece of property, or (c) by reason of an extraordinary and exceptional situation uniquely affecting a specific piece of property or the structures lawfully existing � 11 thereon, the strict application of any regulation pursuant to article 8 [C.40:55D-62 et seq.] of this act would result in peculiar and exceptional practical difficulties to, or exceptional and undue hardship upon, the developer of such property, grant, upon an application or an appeal relating to such property, a variance from such strict application of such regulation so as to relieve such difficulties or hardship[.] 8. N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70c(2) allows the Board to grant variance relief in circumstances where a deviation from the Zoning Ordinances would advance the purposes of the Municipal Land Use Law, N.J.S.A. 40:55D-1 to -163 (the “MLUL”), and the benefits of the deviation would substantially outweigh any detriment. 9. N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70 further states “[n]o variance or other relief may be granted under the terms of this section, including a variance or other relief involving an inherently beneficial use, without a showing that such variance or other relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and will not substantially impair the intent and the purpose of the zone plan and Zoning Ordinance” (the so-called “negative criteria”). 10. The Board finds that the Applicants have satisfied the statutory criteria of N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70c(1) and concludes that it is appropriate to grant the bulk variance relief requested by the Applicants to permit the proposed construction. The need for such variance relief is related to existing conditions affecting the subject property, including the fact that the dwelling is setback less than the prevailing setbacks within the subject area, while the existing combined side yard setbacks are also existing nonconformities, as set forth above and contained in the application materials. Specifically, the subject property’s existing conditions, including the location of existing structure, are hardships specific to same. The Board finds these conditions to be extraordinary and exceptional conditions affecting the property and the structures thereon, which result in practical difficulties and undue hardship to the Applicants. 11. The Board finds that the Applicants have also satisfied the statutory criteria as required by N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70c(2) for the requested variance relief to permit the proposed construction, as numerous purposes of the MLUL, specifically, N.J.S.A. 40:55D-2, are advanced by the application – namely, subsection (a) to encourage the appropriate use of lands in a manner that will promote the public health, safety and welfare; (c) providing sufficient light and space in appropriate locations; and (i) to promote a desirable visual environment, for the reasons set forth above and contained in the application materials. The Board finds that the application’s proposed construction is consistent with the character of the subject neighborhood, while improving overall functionality of the Applicants’ property. The Board finds these goals and objectives are furthered by the application’s proposed construction, which fits within the character of the surrounding neighborhood, and that the proposal was tastefully designed while continuing to provide a significant amount of light, air and open space to the neighboring properties around the subject property. 12. Although the proposed construction requires variance relief, the deviations from the aforementioned requirements can be accomplished without undermining the intent and purpose of the Township Zoning Ordinance or the Master Plan and can be accommodated by the � 12 subject property. The Board concludes that the proposed construction is tasteful and modest, preserves the character of the subject property, and that any negative impact from the proposed improvements is negligible and not a substantial detriment. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, the Board concludes that the positive and negative criteria for variance relief have been met by the Applicants pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70c(1) and c(2), and that the granting of the variance relief requested relating to the proposed construction can be done without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the Zone Plan and Township Zoning Ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED on this 12th day of January, 2026 that the variance relief requested by the Applicants to permit the renovation of the existing dwelling, including the enclosing of the two (2) front porches and the addition of a portico to the front of the existing dwelling on the property located at 22 Hobart Avenue, Short Hills, New Jersey, granted by this Board at its meeting of November 3, 2025, is memorialized pursuant to the provisions of N.J.S.A. 40:55D-10g, subject to the following conditions: 1. The Applicants shall apply for a building permit within 365 days from the date of publication of this decision. 2. The Applicants shall be bound to comply with the representations made before this Board by the Applicants and their licensed architect at the public hearings, including as contained in the application materials and set forth in the Board’s findings of fact contained in this resolution. The Board has relied upon such representations in adopting its findings of fact and granting the approvals set forth herein. Such representations are hereby made conditions of such approvals. 3. The Applicants shall remove all debris from the subject premises immediately upon completion of construction and shall maintain the site in reasonable order during construction. 4. The Applicants shall comply with all other rules, regulations and requirements affecting development in the Township, County and State. CLERK CERTIFICATION I, Eileen Davitt, Secretary of the Zoning Board of Adjustment of the Township of Millburn, County of Essex, State of New Jersey, hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and exact copy of a Resolution adopted at the meeting of the Zoning Board of Adjustment of the Township of Millburn held on the 12th day of January, 2026.� 13 Cal#4050-25, Howard Drew, 50 Farmstead Road, Short Hills With a motion made by Gary Rosen, a second by Regina Truitt, and a roll-call vote as follows: David Bradford – yes Gary Rosen – yes Regina Truitt – yes Jessica Glatt – yes the following memorializing resolution was adopted: HOWARD DREW CAL. NO. 4060-25 BLOCK 4902, LOT 3 January 12, 2026 Ms. Chairperson, I move the adoption of the following resolution memorializing the granting of variance relief requested by the applicant, Howard Drew (hereinafter the “Applicant”), in Calendar No. 4060-25 to permit the construction of an addition to the existing dwelling to add a fourth front-facing garage bay to the existing attached garage on the property located at 50 Farmstead Road, Short Hills, New Jersey, and designated as Lot 3, Block 4902, on the Official Tax Map of the Township of Millburn. RESOLUTION WHEREAS the Millburn Township Zoning Board of Adjustment (hereinafter the “Board”) held a public hearing according to law on December 8, 2025 as to Calendar No. 4060- 25, to permit the construction of an addition to the existing dwelling to add a fourth front-facing garage bay to the existing attached garage on the property located at 50 Farmstead Road, Short Hills, New Jersey, and designated as Lot 3, Block 4902, on the Official Tax Map of the Township of Millburn; and WHEREAS the Board does hereby set forth the following findings of fact, circumstances, reasons, and conclusions: 1. At the December 8, 2025 hearing, the application and service of notice were found to be in order. The Applicant appeared with counsel, Steve Azzolini, Esq., along with Steve Majewski, the Applicant’s licensed architect, and Richard Keller, the Applicant’s professional planner, and provided sworn testimony in support of the application. There was no public opposition to the application. 2. The Applicant is the owner of the subject property, which contains a single-family dwelling located in the Township’s R-4 Zone District (the “R-4 Zone”). The Applicant proposes an addition to the existing dwelling to add a fourth front-facing garage bay to the existing attached garage on the property located at 50 Farmstead Road, Short Hills, New Jersey, and designated as Lot 3, Block 4902, on the Official Tax Map of the Township of Millburn.� 14 3. The proposed construction would result in: (a) a garage with four (4) parking bays, where the existing garage has three (3) parking bays, when the maximum number of permitted parking bays within a garage in the R-4 Zone is limited to three (3); and, (b) an additional front facing garage bay, when front-facing garage bays are not permitted in the R-4 Zone. Therefore, variance relief is required. 4. At the December 8, 2025 hearing, the Board received and considered the following additional documents submitted in support of the application: a. An aerial photograph of the subject property, taken on March 3, 2024, introduced into evidence as Exhibit A-1, on December 8, 2025. 5. Mr. Azzolini introduced the application, and explained that the Applicant seeks approval to construct a one-story addition to the existing single-family to add a fourth garage bay the existing attached garage at 50 Farmstead Road. He stated that the existing property is a substantially oversized with a lot area of approximately 66,600 square feet, which was created by mergers of three lots in 1998, 2001 and 2007 respectively. Mr. Azzolini stated further that the lot is uniquely situated on a bend in the road, with street frontage along three (3) sides. He stated that the additional garage bay will allow the owners to store all vehicles off the street, reducing curbside parking, and will be designed to integrate with the existing dwelling. Mr. Azzolini stated that the subject property has several unique conditions that create practical difficulty for the requested improvements to same, including: (a) the parcel being situated on a bend in the road, resulting in street frontages on three (3) streets, making any reasonable garage orientation face a street, making compliance next to impossible; (b) the property is the product of mergers of three (3) former residential lots, whereupon the DRO anticipates only single-lot parcels, ignoring the unusual, oversized character created through lawful mergers of lots; (c) at more than three times the required lot size, limiting the site to three (3) garage bays disproportionately restricts its use compared to smaller, conforming lots; and (d) the house and garages were designed facing the street; making the addition of another bay within the same orientation the only practical option. 6. Howard Drew, the Applicant, began his testimony be stating that he is seeking a fourth garage bay that will face a public street. He thereafter expressed the reasons why he seeks such approval, including but not limited to: there is always at least one car always parked outside of the garage; he wants to keep all of his cars in the garage; it is good for the neighborhood and for the cars to be kept in a garage; and, he needs additional space for his gardening tools, with the garage being more convenient to property outside of the dwelling. He stated that this proposal shows his extensive commitment to the subject property, while stating that the proposed addition will be constructed of bricks and a door to blend with the surrounding neighborhood. He stated that, in order to add a garage bay that is not front-facing, it would require the addition of extensive lot coverage. 7. Steve Majewski, the Applicant’s licensed architect, testified thereafter that the proposed addition to the garage will include a storage area, and will be constructed to match the � 15 existing exterior look of the dwelling and the existing garage. He testified further that there will not be a basement below the proposed addition. 8. Richard Keller, the Applicant’s professional planner, introduced Exhibit A-1, and testified that the existing subject property is approximately 66,622 square feet, with three (3) garage bays. Mr. Keller testified that, while nonconforming, it is not unusual in the Applicant’s neighborhood for a lot to have a front-facing garage. Mr. Keller testified that the Applicant’s proposal meets the required front yard setback, however, any proposal to comply with the Township’s Development Regulations and Zoning Ordinance (the “DRO”) regarding the orientation of a garage bay would require extensive lot coverage due to the amount of pavement that would be required. Mr. Keller testified further that, due to the fact that the subject property is comprised of three lots that have previously been consolidated, nine (9) garage bays with a total of six (6) curb cuts would be possible had the lots not been previously consolidated. He testified that, nevertheless, the addition of the fourth garage bay will not be visible from the street. He testified that the Applicant requires a grading permit for stormwater management, along with a soil erosion and settlement control permit and a tree replacement permit. With regard to the necessary relief requested by the application, Mr. Keller testified that the proposal meets purposes of zoning section (i), as set forth in subsection -2 of the Municipal Land Use Law, N.J.S.A. 40:55D-1 et seq. (the “MLUL”), as the proposal for the garage expansion will not require so much unsightly lot coverage had the garage proposal not been for a front-facing garage. He testified that likewise, the Applicant’s proposal conforms with the Township’s Master Plan, which encourages the appropriate use of land. Mr. Keller testified further that, notwithstanding the fact that he is not aware of any other four (4) car garages within the Township of Millburn, or lots with 66,000 plus square feet, there will be little visibility of the garage from off-site, which is the reason why the Applicant chose to move or stager the location of the front of the fourth garage bay further back from the road than the other garage bays. Finally, Mr. Keller testified that, while the existing shed on the subject property is not needed, the walkway will be removed, while the Applicant can put in more landscaping, including evergreen and deciduous trees. 9. N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70c(2) allows the Board to grant variance relief in circumstances where a deviation from the Zoning Ordinances would advance the purposes of the Municipal Land Use Law (the “MLUL”), and the benefits of the deviation would substantially outweigh any detriment. 10. N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70 further states “[n]o variance or other relief may be granted under the terms of this section, including a variance or other relief involving an inherently beneficial use, without a showing that such variance or other relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and will not substantially impair the intent and the purpose of the zone plan and Zoning Ordinance” (the so-called “negative criteria”). 11. The Board finds that the Applicant has satisfied the statutory criteria as required by N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70c(2) for the requested variance relief to permit the proposed deviations from the requirements of the R-4 Zone, as certain purposes of the MLUL, specifically, N.J.S.A. 40:55D-2, are advanced by the application – namely, subsection (a) to encourage the appropriate � 16 use of lands in a manner that will promote the public health, safety and welfare; subsection (c) providing sufficient light and space in appropriate locations; and, subsection (i) to promote a desirable visual environment, for the reasons set forth above and contained in the application materials. The Board finds that, while the application’s proposed construction is not necessarily consistent with the character of the subject neighborhood, it will improve the overall functionality of the Applicant’s property while not obstructing sufficient light and space in appropriate locations while also providing a desirable visual environment without the addition of excessive lot coverage. The Board finds these goals and objectives are furthered by the application’s proposed construction, which was tastefully designed. 12. The Board concludes that the proposed construction is tasteful and modest, preserves the character of the subject property, and that any negative impact from the proposed improvements is negligible and not a substantial detriment. Specifically, the subject property can accommodate the negligible impact of the application’s proposed construction. The positive and negative criteria for variance relief have therefore been met by the Applicant pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70c(2). Therefore, for the reasons stated above, the Board concludes that the granting of the variance relief requested relating to the proposed construction can be done without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the Zone Plan and Township Zoning Ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED on this 12th day of January, 2026 that the variance relief requested by the Applicant to permit the construction of an addition to the existing dwelling to add a fourth front-facing garage bay to the existing attached garage on the property located at 50 Farmstead Road, Short Hills, New Jersey, granted by this Board at its meeting of December 8, 2025, is memorialized pursuant to the provisions of N.J.S.A. 40:55D￾10g, subject to the following conditions: 1. The Applicant’s landscaping plan be submitted to and approved by the Township’s Forester, which shall screen the addition from the view from the public road. 2. The Applicant shall apply for a building permit within 365 days from the date of publication of this decision. 3. The Applicant shall be bound to comply with the representations made before this Board by the Applicant at the public hearing, including as set forth in the Board’s findings of fact contained in this resolution. The Board has relied upon such representations in adopting its findings of fact and granting the approvals set forth herein. Such representations are hereby made conditions of such approvals. 4. The Applicant shall remove all debris from the subject premises immediately upon completion of construction and shall maintain the site in reasonable order during construction. 5. The Applicant shall comply with all other rules, regulations and requirements affecting development in the Township, County and State.� 17 CLERK CERTIFICATION I, Eileen Davitt, Secretary of the Zoning Board of Adjustment of the Township of Millburn, County of Essex, State of New Jersey, hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and exact copy of a Resolution adopted at the meeting of the Zoning Board of Adjustment of the Township of Millburn held on the 12th day of January, 2026. Cal#4061-25, Ying Zhang, 15 Ridge Terrace, Short Hills With a motion made by David Bradford, a second by Beth Zall, and a roll-call vote as follows: David Bradford – yes Joseph Caulfield – yes Gary Rosen – yes Regina Truitt – yes Jessica Glatt – yes the following memorializing resolution was adopted: YING ZHANG CAL. NO. 4061-25 BLOCK 1812, LOT 18 January 12, 2026 Ms. Chairperson, I move the adoption of the following resolution memorializing the granting of variance relief requested by the applicant, Ying Zhang (hereinafter the “Applicant”), in Calendar No. 4061-25 to permit the construction of an expanded driveway on the property located at 15 Ridge Terrace, Short Hills, New Jersey, and designated as Lot 18, Block 1812, on the Official Tax Map of the Township of Millburn. RESOLUTION WHEREAS the Millburn Township Zoning Board of Adjustment (hereinafter the “Board”) held a public hearing according to law on December 8, 2025, as to Calendar No. 4061- 25, to permit the construction of an expanded driveway on the property located at 15 Ridge Terrace, Short Hills, New Jersey, and designated as Lot 18, Block 1812, on the Official Tax Map of the Township of Millburn; and WHEREAS the Board does hereby set forth the following findings of fact, circumstances, reasons, and conclusions:� 18 1. At the December 8, 2025 hearing, the application and service of notice were found to be in order. The Applicant appeared without counsel, and along with Gary Chiang, the Applicant’s civil engineer, provided sworn testimony in support of the application. 2. At the December 8, 2025 hearing, the Board received and considered the following additional documents submitted in support of the application: a. A compilation of four (4) photographs of the existing garage and the outside of same, dated December 8, 2025, entered into evidence as Exhibit A-1, on December 8, 2025. 3. The Applicant is the owners of the subject property, which contains a single￾family residential dwelling located in the Township’s R-6 Residential Zoning District (the “R-6 Zone”). The Applicant proposes to construct an expanded driveway on the subject property located at 15 Ridge Terrace, Short Hills, New Jersey, and designated as Lot 18, Block 1812, on the Official Tax Map of the Township of Millburn. 4. The proposed construction would result in: (a) a front yard coverage of 48.5%, where the existing front yard coverage is 33.8%, when the maximum permitted front yard coverage in the R-6 Zone is 30%; and, (b) a front yard wall height that will vary from 2.5 feet to 4.9 feet, when the maximum permitted front yard wall height in the R-6 Zone is two (2) feet. Therefore, variance relief is required. 5. Ying Zhang, the Applicant, introduced the application and gave a brief description of the proposal, including the need for additional parking and the proposed deviations from the Millburn Township Development Regulations and Zoning Ordinance (the “DRO”). Ms. Zhang testified that currently, her family can park only one (1) car in the driveway due to its limited size, with an existing garage that is so tight that they cannot open the vehicle doors if they park inside of same. Likewise, Ms. Zhang testified that on-street parking in the particular area of the Township is limited to a maximum of three (3) hours. 5. Gary Chiang, the Applicant’s civil engineer, began his testimony by introducing Exhibit A-1, stating that only one (1) car can fit on the existing driveway. Mr. Chiang testified that the Applicant’s proposal would expand the existing driveway to 22 feet in width to accommodate two (2) vehicles in the driveway. He testified further that there are existing dwellings in the neighborhood that have retaining walls in the front yards as well, with existing walls up to 8.5 feet in height. 6. N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70c(1) states: Where: (a) by reason of exceptional narrowness, shallowness or shape of a specific piece of property, or (b) by reason of exceptional topographic conditions or physical features uniquely affecting a specific piece of property, or (c) by reason of an extraordinary and exceptional situation uniquely affecting a specific piece of property or the structures lawfully existing thereon, the strict application of any regulation pursuant to article 8 [C.40:55D-62 et seq.] of this act would result in peculiar and exceptional practical difficulties to, or exceptional and undue � 19 hardship upon, the developer of such property, grant, upon an application or an appeal relating to such property, a variance from such strict application of such regulation so as to relieve such difficulties or hardship[.] 7. N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70 further states “[n]o variance or other relief may be granted under the terms of this section, including a variance or other relief involving an inherently beneficial use, without a showing that such variance or other relief can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and will not substantially impair the intent and the purpose of the zone plan and Zoning Ordinance” (the so-called “negative criteria”). 8. The Board finds that the Applicant has satisfied the statutory criteria of N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70c(1) and concludes that it is appropriate to grant the bulk variance relief requested by the Applicant to permit the proposed construction. The need for such variance relief is related to existing conditions affecting the subject property, including the location of existing structures and other site improvements thereon, as set forth above and contained in the application materials, which are hardships specific to same. The Board finds these conditions to be extraordinary and exceptional conditions affecting the property and the structures thereon, which result in practical difficulties and undue hardship to the Applicant. 9. Although the proposed construction requires variance relief, the deviations from the aforementioned requirements are relatively modest, and can be accomplished without undermining the intent and purpose of the Township Zoning Ordinance or the Master Plan and can be accommodated by the subject property. 10. The Board concludes that the proposed construction is tasteful and modest, preserves the character of the subject property, and that any negative impact from the proposed improvements is negligible and not a substantial detriment. Therefore, for the reasons stated above, the Board concludes that the positive and negative criteria for variance relief have been met by the Applicant pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70c(1), and that the granting of the variance relief requested relating to the proposed construction can be done without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the Zone Plan and Township Zoning Ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED on this 12th day of January, 2026 that the variance relief requested by the Applicant to permit the construction of an expanded driveway on the property located at 15 Ridge Terrace, Short Hills, New Jersey, granted by this Board at its meeting of December 8, 2025, is memorialized pursuant to the provisions of N.J.S.A. 40:55D￾10g, subject to the following conditions: 1. The Applicant shall apply for a building permit within 365 days from the date of publication of this decision. 2. The Applicant shall be bound to comply with the representations made before this Board by the Applicant and her licensed architect at the public hearings, including as set forth in � 20 the Board’s findings of fact contained in this resolution. The Board has relied upon such representations in adopting its findings of fact and granting the approvals set forth herein. Such representations are hereby made conditions of such approvals. 3. The Applicant shall remove all debris from the subject premises immediately upon completion of construction and shall maintain the site in reasonable order during construction. 4. The Applicant shall comply with all other rules, regulations and requirements affecting development in the Township, County and State. CLERK CERTIFICATION I, Eileen Davitt, Secretary of the Zoning Board of Adjustment of the Township of Millburn, County of Essex, State of New Jersey, hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and exact copy of a Resolution adopted at the meeting of the Zoning Board of Adjustment of the Township of Millburn held on the 12th day of January, 2026. APPLICATIONS CAL#4051-25, 521 MA PROPERTIES, 521 MILLBURN AVENUE, SHORT HILLS The applicant is re-noticing for a future date. CAL#4025-25, TRIPLE ONE HOLDINGS, 44 ESSEX STREET, MILLBURN The matter was carried to February 2, 2026, for scheduling purposes, only. CAL#4058-25, DIAMOND TOWERS V LLC, 137 JFK PARKWAY, SHORT HILLS *Board Attorney, Robert Simon, recused and left the meeting room. *John DeLuca served as Board Attorney for the matter. Richard Schkolnick, Attorney for the applicant, stated his appearance. The applicant proposes the installation of a monopole and associated telecommunications antenna. Proposal is in violation of: 606.1b – Not a permitted use in the zone 606.1d1 – Required setback to property line 606.1d3 – Exceeds allowable height Preliminary/Final Site Plan approval required� 21 Josh Cottrell, P. E., appeared and was sworn. His credentials were presented and accepted by the Board. He referred to the French & Parrello submission and stated that the site is a 11.26 acre Township-owned property utilized by the Township public works department. The Township has agreed to lease the property to the applicant for the purpose of constructing a telecommunications facility. The proposed improvements include a 50 foot by 50 foot compound with a 12 foot wide gravel driveway. There is also a 6-foot tall chain link fence proposed to be installed along with a 150-foot monopole to accommodate three (3) Verizon antenna in 4 sectors for a total of twelve (12) antenna. The facility is remotely monitored. The lights at the equipment pad are on a 2-hour timer. They are turned on by a technician, if needed. The lights will automatically turn off after 2 hours in the event that the technician forgets to turn them off. He added that this proposal has been designed as per Municipal specifications. He added that as per the recommendation of the Fire Marshal, the width of the access road was increased to 20 feet from the originally proposed 12 feet. Andrew Petersohn, R. F. engineer, appeared and was sworn. His credentials were presented and accepted by the Board. He discussed the coverage/capacity issues along JFK Parkway and White Oak Ridge Road. Entered as A-1: Verizon Wireless existing coverage Entered as A-2: Verizon Wireless proposed coverage Entered as A-3: Verizon Wireless existing best server coverage Entered as A-4: Verizon Wireless proposed best server coverage Mr. Petersohn stated that Verizon sought to work with the Municipality in order to address their coverage gaps. He explained the exhibits and showed the areas where Verizon provides current coverage and the expanded coverage area that will be provided upon the proposed facility. Brian Seidel, P. P., appeared and was sworn. His credentials were presented and accepted by the Board. He stated that the Township owned property is located on JFK Parkway, in the C zone. The applicant’s proposal requires preliminary and final site plan approval with height and setback variances. The proposed monopole will be 150 feet tall, where the maximum height permitted in the C zone is 32 feet. He added that 150 feet is a common standard for monopoles. In addition, the applicant is seeking variance relief to allow a setback less than the 100 feet required. Mr. Seidel spoke to the positive and negative criteria and stated that the site is particularly suited for the use proposed. There is no new access proposed and there is minimal visual impact. The proposal advances the purposes of zoning; specifically (a) guiding appropriate use of land to promote health, safety and welfare; (g) providing space in appropriate location for a variety of uses; (i) providing a desirable visual impact. Mr. Seidel spoke to the negative criteria stating that the proposal causes no detriment to the zone plan or zoning ordinance. There is no significant detriment to the public good. In addition, the monopole is available for co-location. The applicant’s proposal offers the best opportunity to serve the community. � 22 Rick Schkolnick, Applicant’s attorney, summarized and stated that the applicant’s professionals have provided the necessary and relevant testimony and respectfully requested the Board’s approval. The Board discussed the applicant’s proposal and felt the proposal is beneficial to the Township. With a motion made by Joseph Caulfield, a second by David Bradford, and a roll-call vote as follows: David Bradford – yes Joseph Caulfield – yes Gary Rosen – yes Regina Truitt – yes Beth Zall – yes Jessica Glatt – yes Craig Ploetner – yes Cal#4058-25, Diamond Towers V LLC, 137 JFK Parkway, was APPROVED. *Rob Simon returned to the meeting room and resumed as the Board Attorney. CAL#4053-25, 28 GLEN AVENUE LLC, 28 GLEN AVENUE, MILLBURN Chao Mui, applicant, appeared and was sworn. He is proposing to construct an addition. Proposal is in violation of: 606.2e1d – Prevailing front yard setback 606.2e2c – Building height 609.1b – Corner lot accessory structure location Mr. Mui explained that he had plans that were in the final stages of approval for building permits. However, it was discovered that a 36-inch storm sewer easement ran diagonally across his property. This required that he completely change his architectural plans. As a result, he requires variance relief for his new proposal. Eduardo Galarza, Architect, appeared and was sworn. His credentials were presented and accepted by the Board. He gave a brief description of the applicant’s proposal. The existing house is a small, ranch style dwelling of approximately 1000 SF with 3 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms. The proposed addition will result in a 6 bedroom, 5 bathroom dwelling. He spoke to the variance relief required indicating that front yard setback, building height and accessory structure location variances are required to permit the proposed construction.� 23 The applicant proposes a 23-foot front yard setback where the prevailing is 31.05 feet; building height of 33 feet from the average grade where 32 feet is permitted; accessory structure that extends beyond the front plane of the dwelling into the front yard. Overall, the Board felt the proposed construction was not respectful of the ordinance or the neighboring area. They felt the attic floor with windows and balcony makes the dwelling appear as a 3-story building. In addition, the attic plan had the spaces labeled as “bedroom” and “family room.” Based on the Board’s comments, the applicant agreed to an adjournment. The matter was carried to March 2, 2026. CAL#4042-25, MINGJUN/FENG HUANG, 52 WELLINGTON AVENUE, SHORT HILLS Mingjun Huang, applicant, appeared and was sworn. He would like to construct an addition to the dwelling. Proposal is in violation of: 606.2e2a – Building coverage 606.2e2d – Floor area ratio James Ramentol, Architect, appeared and was sworn. His credentials were presented and accepted by the Board. He gave a brief description of the proposal and referred to sheet T-1 of the submitted plans. The applicants received variance relief from this Board in 2016 to construct a detached garage and patio. Entered as P-1: site photos #1 Entered as P-2: site photos #2 Mr. Ramentol stated that the existing dwelling is a tudor revival home in the R-6 zone. The applicant received variance relief from this Board in 2016 to construct a detached garage and patio. The house has 2 bedrooms on the first floor and 3 on the second floor. One of the 1 st floor bedrooms is used as a home office space for the applicant. The other 1st floor bedroom will be eliminated by the expansion of the kitchen area. There will be 3 expanded bedrooms on the 2nd floor, each with their own bathroom. The objective is to improve the internal flow and allow for much needed updating. The current 2nd floor has a sloped roof which results in a very small area of usable space due to low headroom. They are proposing to increase the ceiling heights to allow for 8 foot ceilings which will result in a more functional space. In addition, they propose to attach the existing detached garage to the main dwelling with a 1-story addition of a pantry and mudroom. The applicant seeks building coverage variance relief to permit 27.72% where 23% is permitted. The applicant also seeks floor area ratio variance to permit 39.9% where 36% is permitted. � 24 Craig Ploetner felt that adequate testimony had not been presented that spoke to the need for “d” variance relief. The homeowner’s needs cannot be used as testimony for relief. This is an oversized lot and there is no hardship. Mr. Ramentol asked for an adjournment in order to re-evaluate the application. The matter was carried to March 16, 2026. CAL#4059-25, SAM HAWKSWORTH, 116 CYPRESS STREET, MILLBURN The matter was carried to February 2, 2026, pending notification to utilities. CAL#4062-25, KUN FANG/YUN ZHANG, 3 RIDGE TERRACE, SHORT HILLS Kun Fang and Doug Miller, Architect, and Mallory Clark, P. P., appeared and were sworn. The applicant would like to construct an addition to the dwelling. Proposal is in violation of: 609.6a – Front yard wall height 301.23.3 – Minimum garage dimension 606.2e1e1a – Side yard setback 606.2e2a – Building coverage 606.2e2d – Floor area ratio Doug Miller’s credentials were presented and accepted by the Board. He gave a brief description of the applicant’s proposal. He stated that the lot is narrow and undersized. The dwelling is a 1-1/2 story colonial with many existing non-conforming conditions. They are hoping to improve the functionality of the home. They are proposing to reconstruct the right side of the house to accommodate a new basement garage, a 2nd floor addition of the existing 1st floor at the rear of the dwelling and a 1-story addition at the rear of the house. Mallory Clark’s credentials were presented and accepted by the Board. She spoke to the variance relief being requested. The applicant is seeking variance relief to permit a garage that does not meet the minimum dimensions of 13 feet by 21 feet as required by 301.23.3. The applicant is relocating the existing garage to the basement level and the width of the garage will be a non-compliant 9.3 feet wide. Relief is required from 606.2e1e1a to allow a side yard setback of 6.2 feet where 8 feet is required. Relief is required from 606.2e2a to allow a building coverage of 24.8% where 23% is the maximum permitted. Relief is required from 606.2e2d to allow a floor area ratio of 40.9% where 36% is permitted. Finally, relief from 609.6a is require to permit a front yard wall height that exceeds the allowable 2 feet. Ms. Clark stated that the request for building coverage and floor area ratio variances cannot be avoided due to the undersized lot area. The siting of the existing house creates a C-1 hardship when attempting to design an attractive house that complies with the setback � 25 requirements. The house is close to the side yard where the new basement garage will be built, which requires a retaining wall greater than 2 feet in height. The additions will not encroach any further into the rear yard with the exception of the 2nd floor cantilever. The lot can adequately accommodate a floor area ratio in excess of the allowable with no substantial detriment. Doug Miller stated that the changes proposed will enhance the functionality of the home and add to the aesthetics of the dwelling. The applicant has worked hard to conform to all other requirements for the zone. Overall, the Board felt the application was well-presented and the proofs were clearly met. With a motion made by David Bradford, a second by Regina Truitt, and a roll-call vote as follows: David Bradford – yes Joseph Caulfield – yes Gary Rosen – yes Regina Truitt – yes Beth Zall – yes Jessica Glatt – yes Craig Ploetner – yes Cal#4062-25, Kun Fang, 3 Ridge Terrace, “d” variance relief for FAR was APPROVED. With a motion made by Beth Zall, a second by David Bradford, and a roll-call vote as follows: David Bradford – yes Joseph Caulfield – yes Gary Rosen – yes Regina Truitt – yes Beth Zall – yes Jessica Glatt – yes Craig Ploetner – yes Cal#4062-25, Kun Fang, 3 Ridge Terrace, “c” variance relief was APPROVED. CAL#4065-25, JASON & JILLIAN RAINER, 50 FARBROOK DRIVE, SHORT HILLS Jason Rainer, applicant, and Steve Rubin, contractor, appeared and were sworn. The applicant would like to construct a 1-story addition/covered porch to the rear of the dwelling. Proposal is in violation of: 606.2e2a – Building coverage� 26 Jason Rainer stated that the addition would allow for a new bedroom and bathroom area on the first floor. The new construction meets the required setbacks but results in a building coverage of 15.87% (3,229 SF) where the ordinance allows 14% building coverage in the zone. He stated that there is considerable mature landscaping that will buffer the view of the addition from the nearest neighbor. Overall, Board members felt the addition was tasteful and were in support of the matter. With a motion made by Regina Truitt, a second by David Bradford, and a roll-call vote as follows: David Bradford – yes Joseph Caulfield – yes Gary Rosen – yes Regina Truitt – yes Beth Zall – yes Jessica Glatt – yes Craig Ploetner – yes Cal#4065-25, Cal#4065-25, Jason & Jillian Rainer, 50 Farbrook Drive, was APPROVED. BUSINESS There were no members of the public who wished to speak on non-agenda items. ADJOURNMENT A motion to adjourn was made by Jessica Glatt, seconded by Joseph Caulfield, and carried with a unanimous voice vote. (10:20 PM) Eileen Davitt Board Secretary Motion: JG Second: DB Date Adopted: 2/2/26�