Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board approves revised driveway and garage plan after applicant reduces impervious coverage
Summary
The Millburn Board of Adjustment approved a revised plan for a driveway, new garage and retaining walls after the applicant reduced front‑yard impervious coverage from a proposed 44.5% to 37.4% and agreed to remove a crossover connector to further lower coverage.
The Millburn Township Board of Adjustment on June 16 approved a revised application for a driveway, a new side‑facing garage and associated retaining walls after the applicant presented colorized renderings and a revised zoning table.
The applicant's engineer, John Varangi, presented Revision B (dated June 8) and said the existing front‑yard impervious area is about 24.8% (roughly 1,273 square feet). The applicant had earlier proposed 44.5% but reduced that figure in Revision B to 37.4% (about 1,922 square feet). Varangi told the board that removing a red‑hatched connector shown on an exhibit could bring the front‑yard impervious area down to about 30%, and he offered copies of the exhibit for the record.
Board members focused on two safety and zoning questions: whether the new drive configuration would allow vehicles to avoid backing onto the narrow street, and whether the cross‑over connector between two driveways could be eliminated to reduce impervious coverage. The applicant and his engineer said the design preserves sufficient turning radius for typical passenger vehicles and that deleting the connector would materially reduce impervious area while still allowing safe maneuvers in most conditions.
After closing the public portion, a board member moved to approve the application as revised and the motion was seconded. The board voted in favor and approved the application with the condition discussed in deliberations (deletion of the crossover connector and engineering/drainage review as required by staff). The board also directed that final plan sheets reflect the Revision B exhibit and that municipal engineering review the drainage details.
The approval follows standard board practice of balancing neighborhood impacts and site constraints: members who supported the application said it addressed safety concerns and had been revised to respond to the board’s earlier requests for clearer visuals and impervious‑area calculations; members who raised concerns emphasized the need for rigorous engineering review of stormwater and the importance of memorializing any trees to be added to replace those removed.
The board closed the matter and wished the applicant luck with the construction.
