Millburn Zoning Board Grants Extension Amid Debate on Residential Deviations
- Meeting Overview:
At a recent Millburn Town Zoning Board meeting, discussions centered around significant zoning applications, including an extension request due to personal circumstances and a proposal for a residential addition with deviations from zoning regulations. The board navigated these complex matters with a focus on ensuring adherence to municipal guidelines while considering individual needs.
0:00A primary focus of the meeting was the application for an 18-month extension on Sagamore Road, presented by the applicant’s representative. The request, driven by personal circumstances involving the birth of the applicant’s son, sought additional time to secure a building permit and finalize plans for what was intended as the applicant’s “forever home.” The extension request was longer than the typical one-year period usually granted by the board. During discussions, members expressed a preference for adhering to standard procedures, suggesting that a one-year extension be granted initially, with the option for the applicant to request further time if required. Legal counsel advised that under municipal law, applicants are permitted to request up to three one-year extensions. Ultimately, a motion was made and passed unanimously to extend the time for 12 months, allowing the applicant additional time to proceed with construction.
21:49Another notable discussion involved a zoning application for a residential property that proposed changes to the floor area ratio (FAR) and side yard setbacks. The architect, Thomas Veo, with over 33 years of experience, presented a modified application aimed at aligning with the board’s expectations. The previous proposal had included a significant FAR deviation of 19% over the permitted 36%, which was reduced in the current plan to a FAR of 4.62%. The new design eliminated a first-floor expansion and instead proposed a second-floor addition, resulting in a more aesthetically pleasing structure with two gables rather than a flat elevation.
Despite these modifications, the application still required variances for combined side yard setbacks, as the proposed setbacks did not meet the 21-foot requirement. Board members engaged in discussions to clarify the measurements and variances, highlighting that the total combined side yard was below the required 21 feet, necessitating a variance of approximately 3.5 feet. The board emphasized the need for clarity on these variances and the rationale behind the new architectural plans.
45:12The debate extended to the justification for the deviations, with some members expressing skepticism over the reliance on personal circumstances, such as the need for additional bedrooms due to work-from-home arrangements. One member stressed that personal hardship could not serve as a basis for approval, and reducing previous variances alone did not justify the current application. Observations were made about the neighborhood context, noting that many homes had four or five bedrooms, aligning with the proposed expansion from three to five bedrooms.
The dialogue also touched upon the architectural benefits of the proposal, such as the improved aesthetics of the back facade. Despite these changes, some members remained uncomfortable with the FAR and emphasized the importance of adhering to zoning criteria. A proposal to carry the application to a future meeting was made, allowing the applicant to gather further evidence to support their claims regarding neighborhood standards. This would include a comparison of lot sizes and bedroom counts to provide a robust foundation for evaluating the application.
1:24:56In a separate discussion, the board addressed a proposal for a shed that would increase impervious coverage by 100 square feet. Concerns were raised about the implications of this increase on the property and surrounding area, with one member questioning the appropriateness of labeling the proposed structure as merely a shed. The property fell within the R7 Zone, where two-family use is permitted, but the board noted that the construction did not conform to typical expectations, complicating deliberations.
1:04:11The applicant proposed a shed for storage of outdoor equipment and toys, emphasizing that it would not exceed the height of a neighboring shed. The board considered a motion to approve the application for a shed not exceeding 150 square feet, contingent on removing a portion of pavement to offset the addition of impervious coverage. The motion was approved with a majority.
Annette Romano
Zoning Board Officials:
Craig Ploetner, Jessica Glatt, Joe Caulfield, Chandru Harjani, Amy Lawrence, Gary Rosen, Regina Truitt, Pricilla Saraf (Alt #1), Xiaoxuan (Derek) Peng (Alt #2), Robert Simon (Board Attorney), Eileen Davitt (Zoning Officer/Board Secretary)
-
Meeting Type:
Zoning Board
-
Committee:
-
Meeting Date:
03/03/2025
-
Recording Published:
03/03/2025
-
Duration:
123 Minutes
-
Notability Score:
Routine
Receive debriefs about local meetings in your inbox weekly:
-
State:
New Jersey
-
County:
Essex County
-
Towns:
Millburn
Recent Meetings Nearby:
- 07/21/2025
- 07/22/2025
- 115 Minutes
- 07/21/2025
- 07/22/2025
- 47 Minutes
- 07/21/2025
- 07/21/2025
- 165 Minutes