1 Township of Millburn Minutes of the Zoning Board of Adjustment March 2, 2026 A regular meeting of the Township of Millburn Zoning Board of Adjustment was held on Monday, March 2, 2026 at 7:00 PM at Millburn Township Board of Education, Education Center Building, 434 Millburn Avenue, Millburn, New Jersey. Chair Craig Ploetner opened the meeting by reading Section 5 of the Open Public Meetings Act. The following members were present for the meeting: David Bradford Gary Rosen Beth Zall Nilmino Roberts Steve Cohen Craig Ploetner, Chair Also present: Jon Kaplan, Acting Board Attorney Eric Fishman, Court Reporter Eileen Davitt, Zoning Officer/Board Secretary APPROVAL OF MINUTES A motion to approve the minutes of February 2, 2026, was made by David Bradford, seconded by Gary Rosen, and carried with a unanimous voice vote. MEMORIALIZATIONS Cal#4058-25, Diamond Towers V LLC, 137 JFK Parkway, Short Hills With a motion made by Beth Zall, a second by David Bradford, and a roll-call vote as follows: David Bradford – yes Gary Rosen – yes Beth Zall – yes Craig Ploetner – yes the following memorializing resolution was adopted:� 2 TOWNSHIP OF MILLBURN ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT COUNTY OF ESSEX, STATE OF NEW JERSEY MEMORIALIZING RESOLUTION Calendar No. 4058-25 Diamond Towers V LLC 137 John F. Kennedy Parkway Block 5401, Lot 1 WHEREAS, Diamond Towers V LLC (the “Applicant”) filed an application for development, which was assigned Calendar No. 4058-25, with the Township of Millburn Zoning Board of Adjustment (the “Board”) seeking preliminary and final major site plan approval together with D and C variance relief to permit a wireless telecommunications facility consisting of a 150-foot monopole containing 12 antennas within a 50-foot by 50-foot (2,500 square foot) fenced-in compound, together with a 20-foot-wide gravel access drive, equipment pad, diesel generator, and other ancillary improvements at the subject property; and WHEREAS, the subject property is located at 137 John F. Kennedy Parkway, which is also designated as Block 5401, Lot 1 on the Official Tax Maps of the Township of Millburn, and is situated within the C Conservation-Recreation Zone, as depicted on the Zoning Map set forth at Millburn Township Code § DRZ Attachment 4:1, where telecommunications facilities are not a permitted use; and WHEREAS, the subject property is Township-owned and currently used for leaf composting and storage; and WHEREAS, the Applicant was the successful bidder in a municipal bid process to install a telecommunications facility at the subject property; and WHEREAS, the Board conducted a public hearing on the application on January 12, 2026, at 7:00 p.m. at the Millburn Board of Education, Education Center, 434 Millburn Avenue, Millburn, New Jersey, in accordance with the Municipal Land Use Law, N.J.S.A. 40:55D-1 et seq. (“MLUL”), and all applicable notice and procedural requirements were satisfied; and WHEREAS, to effectuate its proposal, the Applicant required the following legal relief from the Board: 1. Preliminary and final major site plan approval, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:55D-46 and Millburn Township Code § DRZ-415. 2. Use variance approval, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70d(1), for a deviation from Millburn Township Code § DRZ-606.1b, to permit a wireless telecommunications facility, where such use is not permitted.� 3 3. Height variance approval, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70d(6), for a deviation from Millburn Township Code § DRZ-606.1d.3, to construct a monopole with a height of 150 feet, where the maximum structure height is 32 feet. 4. Bulk variance approval, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70c(2), for a deviation from Millburn Township Code § DRZ-606.1d.1, to locate a monopole 75 feet from the property line, where the required minimum setback is 100 feet. 5. Bulk variance approval, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70c(2), for a deviation from Millburn Township Code § DRZ-609.6a, to locate a 6-foot chain link fence within a front yard, where such fences are prohibited within front yards. WHEREAS, the Applicant submitted and the Board considered the following materials, which are part of the application and record: 1. Land Use Application, prepared by the Applicant, consisting of seven (7) pages, dated September 15, 2025; 2. Application Checklist, prepared by the Applicant, consisting of four (4) pages, dated September 15, 2025; 3. Notice of Hearing, prepared by the Applicant, consisting of one (1) page, dated September 15, 2025; 4. Tax and Assessment Payment Report, prepared by the Applicant's attorney, consisting of one (1) page, dated September 15, 2025; 5. Request for Property Owners List, prepared by the Applicant's attorney, consisting of one (1) page, dated September 15, 2025; 6. Summary of Variances, prepared by the Applicant, consisting of one (1) page, dated September 13, 2025; 7. Ownership Disclosure, prepared by the Applicant, consisting of one (1) page, dated September 15, 2025; 8. Ground Lease Agreement, prepared by the Applicant, consisting of nineteen (19) pages, dated April 17, 2025; 9. W-9, prepared by the Applicant, consisting of six (6) pages, dated September 15, 2025; 10. Electromagnetic Exposure Analysis, prepared by DBM Engineering LLC, consisting of eight (8) pages, dated July 24, 2025;� 4 11. Structural Design Report, prepared by Sabre Industries, consisting of forty (40) pages, dated September 9, 2025; 12. Partial Boundary & Topographic Plan, prepared by RMC Surveying, consisting of one (1) sheet, dated May 14, 2025; and 13. Site Plans, prepared by French & Parrello Associates, consisting of thirteen (13) sheets, dated September 9, 2025, last revised October 27, 2025. WHEREAS, the Board received and considered the following professional review reports (collectively, the “Professional Reports”), all of which are part of the record: 1. Police Review Letter, prepared by Sergeant Socrates Barbosa of the Millburn Police Department, consisting of one (1) page, dated December 2, 2025; 2. Fire Review Letter, prepared by Captain Michael Adubato, Fire Official of Millburn Township, consisting of two (2) pages, dated November 25, 2025; 3. Forester Review Memorandum, prepared by Stacie Phelps, Forester of Millburn Township, consisting of one (1) page, dated November 14, 2025; 4. Engineering Review Memorandum, prepared by Martha Callahan, P.E., C.F.M., Millburn Township Engineer, consisting of three (3) pages, dated November 21, 2025; and 5. Planning Report, prepared by Graham Petto, AICP/PP, Board Planner, consisting of nine (9) pages, dated January 5, 2026. WHEREAS, the Applicant was represented by Richard Schkolnick, Esq., of the Law Offices of Richard Schkolnick, LLC, 75 Main Street, Millburn, New Jersey; and WHEREAS, by and through its counsel, the Applicant presented and the Board considered the following testimony during the hearing, which is part of the record: 1. Civil engineering testimony of Joshua R. Cottrell, P.E., of French & Parrello Associates, which the Board found to be credible and persuasive; 2. Radio-frequency engineering testimony of Andrew Petersohn, P.E., which the Board found to be credible and persuasive; and 3. Planning testimony of Brian Seidel, PP, AICP, which the Board found to be credible and persuasive; and WHEREAS, during the hearing, the Applicant introduced and presented additional exhibits, which were marked in evidence and made part of the record, and considered by the Board, as follows:� 5 A-1 Verizon Wireless Existing Reliable Coverage Map (in-building and in-vehicle coverage), prepared by Andrew Petersohn, P.E., dated January 12, 2026; A-2 Verizon Wireless Proposed Coverage Map (showing the site “turned on”), prepared by Andrew Petersohn, P.E., dated January 12, 2026; A-3 Verizon Wireless Existing Best Server Coverage Map (capacity analysis), prepared by Andrew Petersohn, P.E., dated January 12, 2026; and A-4 Verizon Wireless Proposed Best Server Coverage Map (showing relief to overburdened sectors), prepared by Andrew Petersohn, P.E., dated January 12, 2026. WHEREAS, no members of the public appeared or commented; and WHEREAS, the Board, having heard the testimony and legal arguments, reviewed the exhibits and Professional Reports, and deliberated, makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law, all of which are supported by substantial credible evidence in the record: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The application, plans, notices, and jurisdictional requirements are complete and in order. 2. The property is a Township-owned parcel in the C Conservation-Recreation Zone, currently used for leaf composting/storage with existing paved access from JFK Parkway (an Essex County road). 3. The proposal will not interfere with DPW operations and utilizes the existing entrance. 4. During the testimony of Joshua R. Cottrell, P.E., he described the revised plans (last revised October 27, 2025, 13 sheets) showing the 50' x 50' compound, 20-foot gravel access drive, self-supporting monopole, equipment pad with space for municipal and future carriers, underground electric/fiber utilities, and existing 8-foot berm with vegetation screening the compound from JFK Parkway. The Board found Mr. Cottrell's testimony to be credible and persuasive. 5. The proposed facility consists of a 150-foot self-supporting monopole (antennas at 145-foot centerline), 2,500-square-foot fenced compound (6-foot chain-link with barbed wire and 12-foot gate), 20-foot gravel access drive, concrete equipment pad, diesel generator, and ancillary improvements, all remotely monitored with visits every 4-6 weeks.� 6 6. The proposed site disturbance is approximately 9,746 square feet with new impervious coverage of only 950 square feet, fully mitigated by a 10-inch stone bed meeting Township stormwater standards. 7. The variances requested are accurately described in the above recitals and are necessary; the location closer to JFK Parkway (reduced setback) and front-yard fence placement avoid impacts to DPW operations and rear environmentally sensitive areas (wetlands/floodplain). 8. During the testimony of Andrew Petersohn, P.E., he presented and explained Exhibits A-1 through A-4 (Verizon Wireless coverage and capacity maps and related maps), demonstrating both coverage gaps (particularly in-building service in central Millburn neighborhoods south of JFK Parkway) and capacity overload on existing sites (including Millburn 3 in the nearby church steeple), with the proposed facility providing substantial new green (in-building) and yellow (in-vehicle) coverage and relieving overburdened sectors using standard industry propagation modeling. The Board found Mr. Petersohn's testimony to be credible and persuasive. 9. Credible expert testimony established a clear need for both coverage and capacity relief in central Millburn, with the site centrally located to fill the gap and relieve overburdened existing facilities. 10. During the testimony of Brian Seidel, PP, AICP, he analyzed the application under the criteria of Medici v. BPR Co., 107 N.J. 1 (1987) (as modified for telecommunications facilities), Smart v. Fair Lawn, 152 N.J. 309 (1998), and Grasso v. Spring Lake Heights, 375 N.J. Super. 41 (App. Div. 2004), concluding, in his opinion, that the site is particularly suited due to municipal ownership, the bid process controlling location, previously disturbed public-works use, central location to the service gap, no feasible alternative tall structures, minimal visual impacts (screened by existing berm/vegetation and roadway curvature), advancement of MLUL purposes (A), (G), and (I), FCC licensing serving the general welfare, and no detriment to the public good or zoning/master plan scheme. The Board found Mr. Seidel's testimony to be credible and persuasive. 11. The proposal incorporates all Fire, Engineer, and other staff recommendations (20-foot access, light timer, soil borings, etc.), with screening by existing topography and vegetation limiting visibility essentially to JFK Parkway motorists. 12. The Township’s municipal bid process and selection of this disturbed public￾works site represent a deliberate effort to control tower location in the absence of a specific wireless ordinance, consistent with the 2018 Master Plan’s discussion of small cells and co￾location. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Applicant has satisfied the positive criteria for the D(1) use variance by demonstrating special reasons: the facility advances the general welfare (FCC-licensed wireless � 7 service), the site is particularly suited (municipal ownership, bid-selected, pre-disturbed location on major roadway, central to coverage/capacity gap, no alternatives, minimal improvements/visual impact), and the proposal promotes MLUL purposes (A), (G), and (I). The Board further finds that the enhanced quality of proof required under Medici is satisfied by the uncontroverted expert testimony demonstrating site suitability, lack of feasible alternatives, and minimal impact on the zone plan. 2. The D(6) height variance is supported under the relaxed standard of Grasso, as the height is tailored to the technical requirements of the use and avoids the harms height limits are intended to prevent (excessive intensity or character change) while providing substantial public benefit. 3. The C(2) bulk variances are supported because the purposes of the MLUL are advanced and the benefits of the deviation substantially outweigh any detriment. The protection of sensitive areas and DPW operations outweighs any minor visual change. 4. The negative criteria are satisfied. Granting the variances will cause no substantial detriment to the public good or impairment of the intent and purpose of the zone plan and zoning ordinance/master plan. Any minor visibility is offset by significant coverage/capacity benefits, co-location potential, and emergency-service improvements on an already disturbed site. 5. The positives substantially outweigh any negatives. The application satisfies all applicable MLUL standards for site plan approval and associated variances. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Zoning Board of Adjustment of the Township of Millburn, County of Essex, State of New Jersey, on this 2 nd day of March 2026, that the application of Diamond Towers V LLC seeking preliminary and final major site plan approval together with the requested D(1), D(6), and C variances is hereby APPROVED, subject to the following conditions: 1. All construction, installation, and operation of the wireless telecommunications facility shall comply with the plans, exhibits, and testimony presented to the Board. Any material deviation shall require further Board review and approval. 2. The Applicant shall pay all outstanding escrow fees, including but not limited to Board engineering, planning, legal, and administrative review costs, and shall replenish any escrow account upon notice from the Township in accordance with N.J.S.A. 40:55D-53.2. No zoning permit, construction permit, or final sign-off shall be issued until all required escrows and inspection fees have been paid in full, and any deficiency shall be addressed prior to the issuance of a certificate of completion. 3. The Applicant shall comply with all comments, recommendations, and requirements set forth in the Professional Reports, as defined and referenced herein, unless specifically modified by the Board on the record or herein, which includes but is not limited to:� 8 a. widening the access drive to 20 feet, b. installation and maintenance of security gates with emergency operation and Knox Box per Fire Official, c. automatic timer on any flood lighting, d. soil borings for foundation design, e. perimeter landscaping screening if deemed necessary by the Board Planner/Engineer, f. tree removal/restoration permit if applicable, g. DPW coordination for the compost pile, h. underground utility installation where required, and i. submission of final AutoCAD plans to the Fire Official. 4. The Applicant shall obtain all approvals, permits, and authorizations required by law, including but not limited to the Township Engineer, Construction Code Official, Fire Official, Electrical Subcode Official, and any other governmental agency with jurisdiction. Proof of such approvals shall be supplied to the Zoning Officer prior to construction. 5. The Applicant shall obtain all other required federal, state, county, and local permits and approvals, including but not limited to NJDEP, Essex County, and utility approvals. 6. The Applicant shall post all required performance and maintenance guarantees in accordance with the MLUL and Township ordinances. 7. Applicant shall apply for a building permit within 365 days from publication of the decision. 8. Applicant shall be bound by all representations made by the applicant and its professionals, including the Board’s findings of fact as stated herein. 9. Remove all debris immediately upon completion of construction and maintain the site in reasonable order during construction. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board Secretary is authorized and directed to publish notice of this resolution in accordance with law and to furnish copies to the Applicant, its attorney, the Township Clerk, the Township Engineer, the Board Attorney, and all other persons entitled thereto. This resolution fully complies with N.J.S.A. 40:55D-10(g) and constitutes the Board’s written memorialization of its January 12, 2026, decision. The approvals are effective upon adoption of this memorializing resolution.� 9 Cal#4062-25, Yun Zhang/Kun Fang, 3 Ridge Terrace, Short Hills With a motion made by Gary Rosen, a second by David Bradford, and a roll-call vote as follows: David Bradford – yes Gary Rosen – yes Beth Zall – yes Craig Ploetner – yes the following memorializing resolution was adopted: YUN ZHANG & KUN FANG CAL. NO. 4062-25 BLOCK 1812, LOT 23 March 2, 2026 Mr. Chairman, I move the adoption of the following resolution memorializing the granting of variance relief requested by the applicants, Yun Zhang and Kun Fang (the “Applicants”), in Calendar No. 4062-25 to permit the construction of a two-story addition to the existing single-family dwelling, on property located at 3 Ridge Terrace, Short Hills, New Jersey, designated on the Official Tax Map of the Township of Millburn as Lot 23, Block 1812. RESOLUTION WHEREAS the Millburn Township Zoning Board of Adjustment (hereinafter the “Board”) held a public hearing according to law on January 12, 2026, as to Calendar No. 4062- 25 to permit the construction of a two-story addition to the existing single-family dwelling, on property located at 3 Ridge Terrace, Short Hills, New Jersey, designated on the Official Tax Map of the Township of Millburn as Lot 23, Block 1812; and WHEREAS the Board does hereby set forth the following findings of fact, circumstances, reasons, and conclusions: 1. At the January 12, 2026 hearing, the application and service of notice were found to be in order. The Applicants appeared without counsel, and together with Douglas Miller, the Applicants’ licensed architect, and Mallory Clark, the Applicants’ professional planner, provided sworn testimony in support of the application. There was no public opposition to the application. 2. At the January 12, 2026 hearing, the Board received and considered the following additional documents submitted in support of the application: a. A Slide Presentation, consisting of seven (7) slides, with descriptions and comparisons with several of the other dwellings along Ridge Terrace, entered into evidence as Exhibit A-1, on January 12, 2026� 10 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 zone district (the “R-6 Zone”). The Applicants propose to construct a two-story addition to the existing single-family dwelling, with said improvements triggering the need for the following variance relief: (a) a side yard setback, above 18 feet in height, of 6.2 feet, where the existing side yard setback, above 18 feet in height, is 6.2 feet, when the minimum required side yard setback, above 18 feet in height, is eight (8) feet; (b) a building coverage of 24.8% (1,430 square feet), where the existing building coverage is 23.44% (1,350 square feet), when the maximum permitted building coverage is 23% (1,323 square feet); (c) a Floor Area Ratio (“FAR”) of 40.9% (2,356 square feet), where the existing FAR is 37.8% (2,177 square feet), when the maximum permitted FAR in the R-6 Zone is 36% (2,013 square feet); (d) a retaining wall located in a front yard with a varying height, maxing out at a height of six (6) feet, where the existing retaining wall in the front yard is 1.4 feet in height, when the maximum permitted height of a retaining wall in a front yard is two (2) feet; and (e) a garage with the dimensions of 9.3 feet by 23.5 feet, where the existing garage dimensions are 9.5 feet by 18 feet, when the required dimensions of a garage in the R-6 Zone is 13 feet by 21 feet. Therefore, use (FAR) and bulk variance relief is required. 4. Douglas Miller, the Applicants’ licensed architect, gave a brief description of the Applicants’ proposal, including the fact that the subject property is undersized in both lot area and lot width. He went on to testify that the existing dwelling is a 1-1/2 story colonial style home with many existing non-conforming conditions. Mr. Miller testified that the Applicants are hoping to improve the functionality of the existing dwelling, while proposing to reconstruct the right side of said dwelling to accommodate a new basement garage and a second-story addition over the existing first floor at the rear of the dwelling. Mr. Miller testified that the proposal will add a fourth bedroom to the second story, while also creating more normal sized bedrooms and bathrooms. Notwithstanding the fact that the Applicants seek to add a fourth dormer to the roof of the dwelling, Mr. Miller stated that the height of the dwelling will remain well below the maximum permitted height in the R-6 Zone. He testified that reconfiguring the first story to have a guest suite and a more modern floor layout. Mr. Miller stated that this would increase visibility and functionality of the home. Overall, Mr. Miller testified that the Applicants’ proposal will add a more attractive façade to the existing dwelling, while the subject property is particularly suited for the proposal within the neighborhood. 5. Mallory Clark, the Applicants’ professional planner, spoke to the variance relief being requested. Introducing Exhibit A-1, Ms. Clark testified as to the Applicants requested variance relief, including relief to permit a garage that does not meet the minimum dimensions of 13 feet by 21 feet as required by the Millburn Development Regulations and Zoning Ordinance (the “DRO”). She testified further that the Applicants are proposing to relocate the existing garage to the basement level, resulting in the width of the garage being non-compliant with the DRO at 9.3 feet wide. She testified that relief is also required to allow a side yard setback of 6.2 feet where 8 feet is required; a building coverage of 24.8% where 23% is the maximum permitted; a floor area ratio of 40.9% where 36% is permitted; and a front yard wall height that exceeds the allowable two (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 of the subject property. Ms. Clark testified that the siting of the existing house creates a hardship when � 11 attempting to design an attractive house that complies with the setback requirements set forth in the DRO. She stated that the existing dwelling is close to the side yard where the new basement garage is proposed to be built, which requires a retaining wall greater than two (2) feet in height. Likewise, Ms. Clark testified that the proposed additions to the existing dwelling will not encroach any further into the rear yard with the exception of the proposed cantilever on the second story. She stated further that the proposal remains compliant with lot coverage, and that any massing of the dwelling will be minimized with pitched roof design. With regard to the bulk variance relief requested by the Applicants, Ms. Clark testified that said relief can be granted pursuant to either c(1) or c(2) of section -70 of the Municipal Land Use Law, N.J.S.A. 40:55D-1 et seq. (the “MLUL”), as the relief can be granted due to the hardships set forth herein or the “purposes of zoning, including subsection (e) and (i) of Section -2 of the MLUL. With regard to the Township’s Master Plan, Ms. Clark testified that the Applicants’ proposal will protect the character of the neighborhood, as the addition will not make the home incongruous with the neighborhood. Finally, Ms. Clark testified that the subject property can adequately accommodate a floor area ratio in excess of what is permitted by the DRO with no substantial detriment to the public or the public good. 6. Returning to provide additional testimony, Doug Miller, the Applicants’ licensed architect, stated that the proposed changes to the existing dwelling will enhance the functionality of the home and add to the aesthetics of the dwelling, which was thoughtfully designed through hard work to conform to all other requirements for the R-6 Zone as set forth in the DRO. 7. In a FAR variance application pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70(d)(4), an applicant must demonstrate that the proposed site will accommodate any problems associated with a proposed floor area larger than that permitted by the Zoning Ordinance to establish special reasons. Randolph Town Center v. Tp. of Randolph, 324 N.J. Super. 412 (App. Div. 1999). 8. 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[.] 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.� 12 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 Applicants have satisfied the statutory criteria as required by N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70(d)(4) for FAR variance relief and concludes that it is appropriate to grant the variance relief requested by the Applicants to permit the proposed construction. Due to the fact that the subject property is significantly undersized and nonconforming, the Board is satisfied that the proposed construction is modest in size, similar to those on neighboring properties, and that the subject property can accommodate the Applicants’ proposal. Although the proposed construction requires FAR variance relief as set forth above, the deviation from the requirement is nevertheless modest and can be accomplished without undermining the intent and purpose of the Township’s DRO. For the reasons set forth above, the subject property can accommodate any perceived problems associated with a proposed FAR larger than what is permitted by the DRO, so to establish special reasons. Although the application proposes to increase the FAR above the allowable FAR for the R-6 Zone, it can be accommodated by the subject property and will not negatively impact neighboring properties. 12. The proposed construction will result in the residence on the subject property remaining similar in size to other residences in the surrounding neighborhood. The scale and design of the proposed project is also in keeping with that of neighboring homes and properties. 13. The Board concludes, for all the reasons set forth above, the granting of FAR variance relief to permit the proposed construction can be accomplished without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially impairing the intent and purpose of the Zone Plan and Zoning Ordinance. 14. The Board finds that the Applicants have also 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 property, dwelling and other site improvements as set forth above and contained in the application materials. Specifically, the existing conditions on the subject property, including the nonconforming lot area and narrowness of the subject property, are hardships specific to the 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. Although the proposed construction requires variance relief, the deviations from the bulk requirements are relatively modest, tasteful, and can be accomplished without undermining the intent and purpose of the DRO or the Master Plan and can be accommodated by the subject property. 15. The Board also 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 � 13 by the application – namely, subsections (a) to encourage the appropriate use of land in a matter that will promote public health, safety, morals and the general welfare; (e) to promote the establishment of appropriate population densities and concentrations that will contribute to the well-being of persons and neighborhoods; and, (i) to promote a desirable visual environment, for the reasons set forth above and contained in the application materials. 16. 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 Applicants pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70c(1) and c(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’s DRO. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED on this 2 nd day of March 2026, that the variance relief requested by the Applicants to permit the construction of a two-story addition to the existing single-family dwelling on the subject property located at 3 Ridge Terrace, Short Hills, New Jersey, granted by this Board at its meeting of January 12, 2026, is memorialized pursuant to the provisions of N.J.S.A. 40:55D-10(g), 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 professionals at the public hearing, 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 2 nd day of March, 2026.� 14 Cal#4065-25, Jason & Jillian Rainer, 50 Farbrook Drive With a motion made by Gary Rosen, a second by David Bradford, and a roll-call vote as follows: David Bradford – yes Gary Rosen – yes Beth Zall – yes Craig Ploetner – yes the following memorializing resolution was adopted: JASON & JILLIAN RAINER CAL. NO. 4065-25 BLOCK 4001, LOT 36 March 2, 2026 Mr. Chairman, I move the adoption of the following resolution memorializing the granting of variance relief requested by the applicants, Jason and Jillian Rainer (the “Applicants”), in Calendar No. 4065-25 to permit the construction of an addition to the existing dwelling on property located at 50 Farbrook Drive, Short Hills, New Jersey, and designated as Lot 36, Block 4001, 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 January 12, 2025 as to Calendar No. 4065-25 to permit the construction of an addition to the existing dwelling, on property located at 50 Farbrook Drive, Short Hills, New Jersey, and designated as Lot 36, Block 4001, 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 January 12, 2026 hearing, the application and service of notice were found to be in order. The Applicants appeared without council, and, along with Steven Rubin, the Applicants’ contractor, provided sworn testimony on the application. 2. The Applicants are the owners of the subject property, which contains a single￾family dwelling and associated site improvements, where they propose the construction of a new first-story addition to the rear of said dwelling, which will include, among other things, an additional bedroom and bathroom, located in the Township’s R-4 Zoning District (the “R-4 Zone”), on property located at 50 Farbrook Drive, Short Hills, New Jersey, and designated as Lot 36, Block 4001, on the Official Tax Map of the Township of Millburn.� 15 3. The proposed construction, as originally presented to the Board, would result in a building coverage of 15.8%, where the existing building coverage on the subject property is 13.74%, when the maximum permitted building coverage in the R-4 Zone is 14%. Therefore, variance relief is required. 4. Jason Rainer, one of the Applicants, introduced the application and gave a brief description of the Applicants’ proposal. Mr. Rainer testified that he and his wife seek to construct a one-story addition to the rear of the dwelling, allowing the Applicants to construct a new bedroom and bathroom area on the first floor of the existing dwelling. Mr. Rainer stated thereafter that the proposed addition will also update the dwelling and improving its functionality, with an additional bedroom and office space. He testified thereafter that the Applicants’ proposal requires variance relief due to the proposed building coverage, which is in violation of the Millburn Development Regulations and Zoning Ordinance (the “DRO”). He stated that there is considerable mature landscaping that will buffer the view of the addition from the nearest neighbor, who will not be adversely impacted by same. Finally, Mr. Rainer testified that the proposed addition will not look out to any neighboring properties, while also keeping the massing way down on the dwelling. 5. 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[.] 6. 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. 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”). 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 addition. The need for such variance relief is related to existing conditions affecting the subject property, as set forth above and contained in the application materials. Specifically, the subject property’s existing conditions, including the � 16 existing lot area and the existing building coverage, 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. 8. 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. 9. Although the proposed construction requires variance relief, the deviations from the aforementioned requirements can be accomplished without undermining the intent and purpose of the DRO 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. 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 2nd day of March, 2026 that the variance relief requested by the Applicants to permit the construction of an addition to the existing dwelling on the property located at 50 Farbrook Drive, Short Hills, New Jersey, granted by this Board at its meeting of January 12, 2026, 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 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.� 17 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 2nd day of March, 2026. EXTENSION OF VARIANC RELIEF Cal#3964-24, Valdes/Huober, 53 Sagamore Road, Millburn The applicant, Jose Valdes, indicated that they are requesting another 1-year extension of variance relief, originally granted by this Board on March 18, 2024. He stated that they in the final stages of choosing a contractor for the project and are confident that they will be ready to submit for permits with 1-2 months. With a motion made by Gary Rosen, a second by Steve Cohen, and a unanimous roll-call vote, an extension of variance relief through 3/2/27 was GRANTED. APPLICATIONS CAL#4074-26, LITTLE CLUB TENNIS CENTER, 60 LINDEN STREET, MILLBURN The application was carried to April 27 2026. CAL#4059-25, SAM HAWKSWORTH, 116 CYPRESS STREET, MILLBURN The application was withdrawn by the applicant. CAL#4066-25, KEVIN QIAN/ANNIE CHENG, 738 RIDGEWOOD ROAD, MILLBURN The application was withdrawn by the applicant. CAL#4053-25, 28 GLEN AVENUE LLC, 28 GLEN AVENUE, MILLBURN Chao Mui, applicant, appeared and remains sworn from his 1/12/26 appearance before the Board. He indicated that he made substantial revisions to the originally submitted plans. He � 18 reduced the building height by eliminating the originally proposed attic space, and variance relief for exceeding the allowable building height is no longer required. He also increased the front yard setback from 23.31 feet to 25 feet, which still requires variance relief. The patio remains in the same location and will still require relief for extending slightly beyond the front plane of the dwelling. Board members were pleased with the revisions and appreciated that the applicant listened to their concerns. They feel the new design is much better and in-keeping with the neighborhood character. With a motion made by David Bradford, a second by Beth Zall, and a roll-call vote as follows: David Bradford – yes Gary Rosen – yes Nilmino Roberts – yes Beth Zall – yes Craig Ploetner – yes Cal#4053-25, 28 Glen Avenue, LLC, 28 Glen Avenue, was APPROVED. CAL4064-25, YIYANG/HAIMIN ZHANG, 42 CAMPBELL ROAD, SHORT HILLS Tim Klesse, Architect, Mallory Clark, P. P., and Yiyang and Haimin Zhang, appeared and were sworn. The applicants would like to construct an addition to their dwelling. Proposal is in violation of: 606.2e2d – FAR 606.2e1g – Rear Yard unoccupied 606.2e2a – Building coverage Tim Klesse’s credentials were presented and accepted by the Board. He gave a brief description of the proposal. He stated that currently it is a 3 BR, 1 BA dwelling. They are proposing an addition in order to better accommodate their family size. The 5,960 SF property is located in the R-6 zone and is slightly under the minimum lot size of 6,000 SF. The applicant is seeking a small variance for building coverage to permit 23.5% where 23% is permitted. He indicated that they kept the additional space as small as possible while still being functional. Rear yard unoccupied relief is required to permit 21.8% where 25% is required. The need for variance relief for rear year unoccupied is due to the addition over the former deck, which is making the rear yard area smaller. Entered as A-1: photoboard of 5 photos Mallory Clark’s credentials were presented and accepted by the Board.� 19 Entered as A-2: neighborhood analysis She spoke to the need for “d” variance relief and offered the following testimony. She referred to the neighborhood analysis exhibit and indicated that an analysis was done on 14 properties contiguous to the subject property. Based on information taken from tax data cards, she was able to conclude that out of the 14 properties, 3 are at the maximum allowable 36% FAR and 7 (including the subject property) are over the allowable FAR. All ranged in square footage from approximately 2,000 SF to 3,000 SF. The subject property, after construction, would have a square footage of 2,365 SF. Of the 5 properties that are compliant with FAR, they are somewhat oversized for the zone, ranging in lot area from 7,700 SF to 12,000 SF. Ms. Clark spoke to the positive and negative criteria. She stated that the site can accommodate an FAR in excess of the allowable. There are no setback variances being triggered as part of this application. She feels the proposed construction advances the purposes of the MLUL; specifically, letter (a): encourages development in a matter which will promote the public health, safety, morals and general welfare; (c): provides adequate light, air, and open space; and (e): promotes the establishment of appropriate population densities and concentrations that contribute to the well-being of persons, neighborhoods and communities. She concluded that the proofs for a d(4) variance have been met. Overall, the Board was supportive of the application stating that the addition was modest in nature. With a motion made by Beth Zall, a second by Nilmino Roberts, and a roll-call vote as follows: David Bradford – yes Gary Rosen – yes Beth Zall – yes Nilmino Roberts – yes Steve Cohen – yes Craig Ploetner – yes Cal#4064-25, Yiyang/Haimin Zhang, 42 Campbell Road, was APPROVED. CAL#4068-26, SHASI/RAJESH MAHESWARI, 690 RIDGEWOOD ROAD, MILLBURN Rajesh Maheshwari and Thomas Singer, Architect, appeared and were sworn. Tom Singer’s credentials were presented and accepted by the Board. The applicant would like to construct an addition to the dwelling. Proposal is in violation of: 606.2e1e1a – Side yard setback to 18 feet in height 606.2e1e1b – Addt’l side yard setback 606.2e2a – Building coverage� 20 Entered as A-1: neighborhood analysis Entered as A-2: sheets A-1 through A-4 Tom Singer gave a brief description of the applicant’s proposal. He stated that the owners would like to install an elevator on the ground floor adjacent to the kitchen area in order to provide access to the basement and bedroom levels of the dwelling. They are also proposing a 2 nd floor expansion in order to provide on office area. The 5,457 SF lot is slightly undersized for the R-6 zone, which has a minimum lot size of 6,000 SF. The configuration of this corner lot makes any addition difficult to construct without variance relief. Overall, Board members felt it was a thoughtful application. The applicant is accommodating their needs with minimal impact to the streetscape. With a motion made by Gary Rosen, a second by Beth Zall, and with a roll-call vote as follows: David Bradford – yes Gary Rosen – yes Beth Zall – yes Nilmino Roberts – yes Steve Cohen – yes Craig Ploetner – yes Cal#4068-26, Shasi/Rajesh Maheshwari, 690 Ridgewood Road was APPROVED. CAL#4051-25, 521 MA PROPERTIES, 521 MILLBURN AVENUE, SHORT HILLS Lawrence Sachs, Attorney for the applicant, stated his appearance. The applicant is proposing to construct two (2) 2-bedroom apartments over an existing retail space. The proposal requires preliminary and final site plan approval, as well as c- and d-variance relief. The applicant is prepared to first show the Board that this application is substantially different from the 2017 Board denial at this property address. Don Fiore, architect for the applicant, appeared and was sworn. His credentials were presented and accepted by the Board. He spoke to sheets AO-2 and A1-1 of the submitted plans. He stated that the 2017 application had no parking on site. This applicant has obtained an easement from the Township for the 5 parking spaces in the Township right-of-way adjacent to the applicant’s property. These 5 spaces can now be counted toward the applicant’s parking requirement. Mr. Fiore also stated that the scale of the building has been changed from the previous application and is 5 feet lower in height than the 2017 application.� 21 Nancy Weaver Smith, P. P., appeared and was sworn. Her credentials were presented and accepted by the Board. She spoke to the differences in the variance requests from the previous application. She stated that the 2017 application requested a building coverage of 68% and this current application is seeking relief to allow 66.1%. The 2017 application sought lot coverage of 89.9% where this application seeks 87.6% due to a proposed grass pave porous paver area. Finally, the 2017 application sought an FAR variance of 1.12% where this current application is seeing an FAR of 1.32%. There was extensive Board discussion over the issue of res judicata. Attorney Jon Kaplan gave the Board direction on the issue of res judicata and the elements that are required in order for it to be applicable. He explained that they should consider the following: 1) is the second application substantially similar to the first; 2) are the same parties involved; 3) Is there a substantial change in the application or the conditions surrounding the property; 4) was there an adjudication on the merits in the first case; 5) do both applications involve the same cause of action. Overall, Board members were not convinced that the application was substantially different from the previously denied application at the same location. There is a minimal 2% change to the building and lot coverages, the apartments are larger than in the first application and the increase to the FAR is larger than in the previous application. Lawrence Sachs, Applicant’s attorney, requested an adjournment. The matter was carried to April 13, 2026. BUSINESS The Board briefly discussed the 2025 Annual Report and had no changes. The Board Secretary indicated that the Report would be forwarded to the Township Clerk’s office. There were no members of the public who wished to speak on non-agenda items. ADJOURNMENT A motion to adjourn was made by Beth Zall, seconded by David Bradford, and carried with a unanimous voice vote. (9:43 PM) Eileen Davitt Board Secretary Motion: BZ Second: SC Date Adopted: 4/13/26�