Public Meetings - Edison, New Jersey

The Edison Township Council held a combined work session and regular meeting on Monday, October 26, 2026, at 6 p.m. The agenda and minutes were not provided, so this summary is based solely on the raw meeting transcript. Councilmember Brescher was absent from the roll call and was referred to as having the 'bug.' The meeting included recognition resolutions, a bamboo ordinance introduction, a tabled data-center ordinance, a contested Glendale property resolution, and extensive public comment on Flock surveillance cameras, a proposed Care One expansion, data centers, and other local issues. Consent Calendar - The council adopted the consent agenda except for Resolution 558. Routine items and resolutions were approved, including recognition of Finn Power and Fire Chief Andrew L. Toth Jr., along with various grant, sidewalk, cooperative purchasing, vehicle, and auction items. - Finn Power recognition: The council recognized Finn Power, a youth-led financial empowerment organization founded in Edison in April 2025. The resolution noted that within its first 18 months it grew to more than 15 chapters and impacted over 10,000 individuals through programs in New Jersey, India, Nigeria, Ghana, and Pakistan. The council praised its advocacy for New Jersey legislation S3462/A3123, proposing a standalone high school financial literacy course. One public commenter asked whether volunteers working directly with schools would be fingerprinted like normal school personnel. The resolution passed by roll call. - Chief Andrew L. Toth Jr. recognition: The council honored Chief Toth for 28 years of service to Edison, including 23 years in the Edison Township Fire Department, service as Director of the Office of Emergency Management, and leadership during the COVID-19 pandemic. The resolution noted his 2026 induction into the JP Stevens High School Hall of Honor. Council members and members of the public praised his dedication, humility, and responsiveness. The resolution passed by roll call. Public Comments & Testimony - Flock cameras: Multiple residents opposed the council's prior 6-1 approval of 92 additional Flock license-plate reader cameras, bringing Edison's approved total to 114. John Shu said 250 people had signed a petition asking the council to rescind the Flock contract and cited concerns about Flock's terms of service allowing perpetual use of customer data. Hilary Herzeg argued the expansion violated Fourth Amendment principles and challenged council members to place cameras outside their own homes. Arman Muchala said his OPRA requests were not answered within seven business days and questioned Flock's false-positive rate, full capabilities, and the roughly $600,000 cost. Viviane Verismo, a New Brunswick resident with family in Edison, cited audit-log deletion and employee abuse cases and asked that the money be spent on schools. Ian Padua said he no longer felt safe living in Edison. Gabriel Franco asked for a pause and a public vote. Dan Levine asked the council to consider a subcommittee to study the issue. Joyce Ship Freeman raised privacy, water, and grid concerns. Anthony D'Ameron defended the police department, saying officers enforce policy rather than make it. One speaker, Carl Zerman, supported the cameras and asked for more in the Clara Barton section. - Data centers: Speakers were divided. Supporters, including John Banani, Scott Felasco, Ed Sofield, Richard Schein, and Carl Zerman, cited tax revenue, clean jobs, union labor, closed-loop cooling systems, and examples such as Piscataway, where they said 12 data centers provide 30% of tax revenue and $14 million to the Board of Education. Opponents, including a student speaker, Kulbinder Dhamija, Joyce Ship Freeman, Dan Levine, Gabriel Franco, and another resident, cited water consumption, electric grid strain, environmental hazards, residential placement concerns, and the need for clear definitions to prevent loopholes. The council president noted that the current ordinance already prohibits data centers, so no data-center vote was being taken that night. - Care One / Inman Avenue expansion: Many residents opposed the proposed 95,000-square-foot Care One memory-care facility on Inman Avenue. Patrick Carroll, Sanjay Amin, Ankit Majmudar, Neil Jarrett, Sue Dylan, and Carl Zerman described concerns including traffic, flooding, noise from a proposed generator, property value declines estimated at 10-20%, and the facility's current fines of $1,500 per day for insufficient staffing. Multiple speakers alleged that the Care One attorney offered donations during the zoning board process and threatened a lawsuit if the application was denied. They asked the council to do the right thing and not bow to pressure. Council members remained neutral because the matter could come back to them in litigation or an appeal. - Other public comments: Kulbinder Dhamija requested more detailed agenda explanations, annual council presentations, and greater public engagement. Anthony D'Ameron urged the council to consider banning unsolicited coupon newspapers in plastic bags and to lean on state representatives to restore school funding. Joyce Ship Freeman praised COVID-19 volunteer work, raised concerns about a planning board appointment, and called for a ward system. Dan Levine requested busing for religious holidays and more public discussion of surveillance. Discussion Items - Data-center ordinance: The unfinished business ordinance related to data centers was pulled from action. The township attorney explained that because the ordinance changes zoning, it must go to the planning board first, which has 35 days to review it. The council tabled the ordinance; the attorney noted the current ordinance already prohibits data centers. - Bamboo ordinance: Under new business, Ordinance 2290-2026 was introduced to repeal Chapter 25, Section 17 of the Edison code and to amend Chapter 15 to prohibit new running bamboo planting and relegate private property disputes and grandfathering determinations solely to the civil court system. The ordinance passed first reading with Council President Coyle voting no, and a public hearing was set for November 12, 2026. - Resolution 558 (41 Glendale): This resolution was pulled from the consent agenda. It concerns sending the Glendale property to the planning board for an area-in-need-of-redevelopment study. Public speaker Ron Lawler urged the council to preserve the property as open space, saying it was the last 10 acres in Edison and that county and Green Acres matching funds had been available. Councilmember Kentos moved to table it, seeking answers from the administration about the property's history and legal restrictions. The township attorney said no Green Acres grant had been accepted and the purchase was done through a bond ordinance; he agreed to look into whether any deed restriction applies. The council held a brief closed-session recess for legal consultation. After reconvening, the motion to table failed 2-4, and Resolution 558 was adopted 4-2. Key Outcomes - Finn Power recognition resolution adopted by roll call. - Chief Andrew L. Toth Jr. recognition resolution adopted by roll call. - Consent agenda adopted except Resolution 558. - Data-center ordinance was tabled without a vote on the merits. - Bamboo Ordinance 2290-2026 introduced on first reading, 5-1, with public hearing scheduled for November 12, 2026. - Resolution 558 was adopted 4-2 after a motion to table failed 2-4. - The meeting concluded with announcements about leaf bag distribution, Trunk Retreat on October 30, early voting through November 1, Election Day on November 3, the Diwali Festival of Lights on November 7, and Veterans Day on November 11.

The Edison Township Zoning Board of Adjustment held a special meeting on October 20, 2026, in Council Chambers. The board approved routine minutes and resolutions, voted unanimously to deny a remanded billboard application, adjourned a water-tank variance to November 10, 2026, heard an amended house-of-worship application without reaching a vote, and carried a new house-of-worship application to December 15, 2026. Consent Calendar / Routine Approvals - Approved the October 13, 2026 meeting minutes by roll call: Chabra, Cerrito, Schneider, O'Gorman, and Chairman Cumba all voted yes. - Approved Resolution Z8-2025 (Sacred Foundation denial) unanimously. - Approved Resolution Z24-2026 (J. Badiani approval) unanimously. - Announcements: Z12-2026 (Samrat Mandal, 4 Burlington Court) was carried to November 10, 2026, 7 p.m., with no further notice. Z24-2022 (Old Post Realty, 604-610 Old Post Road) was carried to a later date and requires re-notice. Case Z15-2022: American Outdoor Advertising Remand - The board attorney explained that on August 17, 2026, the New Jersey Appellate Division reversed the trial court's affirmance of the board's denial and remanded the case for a new vote on the existing record, with required findings of fact and conclusions of law. - The hearing was not reopened; there was no new testimony, evidence, or public comment. The attorney instructed members to disregard former Chair Rosemary Federic's 2022 comments about flip time, and all members certified they either attended all four hearings or reviewed missed sessions. - Vice Chair O'Gorman moved to deny; Mr. Schneider seconded. Members cited the applicant's lighting expert's failure to analyze the adjoining property, the proposed 672-square-foot two-sided LED sign versus the 250-square-foot one-sided sign normally allowed, discrepancies in height (100 feet in testimony/notice, 84 feet in the NJDOT permit, 95 feet in the engineer's profile), and the applicant's rejection of proposed conditions such as lower height, static sign face, single face, and nighttime shutoff. - Roll call: Chabra, Cerrito, Schneider, O'Gorman, and Chairman Cumba all voted yes to deny; the application was denied unanimously. Case Z16-2026: Middlesex Water - The applicant asked to adjourn its water-tank variance application, noting it needed five votes and only five members were present, and there were engineering issues to resolve. - The board carried Z16-2026 to November 10, 2026, 7 p.m., without further notice. Amended Z21-2024: Dada Bhagwan Vignan Institute (52 Vineyard Road) - The applicant sought to amend a previously approved site plan for a spiritual center/house of worship at the former Richie's bar site. The amendment would change the approved plan from repurposing the existing structure to demolishing it and constructing a new building after the existing structure was found structurally unsound. - The applicant apologized for a contractor's encroachment on the neighboring Dharma Drum Mountain Buddhist Association property and offered to pay for a replacement fence. It proposed options including keeping the same footprint, squaring the building, or shifting it up to three feet off the side lot line; a two-foot shift would create a front-yard variance of 23 feet where 25 feet is required. - Board members questioned the lack of a structural engineer's report, foundation design, and construction access. Board professional Mr. Carly suggested a half-foot shift to achieve a one-foot side-yard setback without a front-yard variance. Board member Mr. Ayot, drawing on masonry experience, said six inches or two feet were unworkable and that at least three feet was needed to build and maintain the wall. - Public comment: Greg Burkhart of 17 Johnstone Street opposed the project over traffic and emergency access; a resident of 16 Johnstone Street raised aesthetics and parking; Alvin Toy of Dharma Drum said the demolition and encroachment violated the prior resolution and asked for enforcement or revocation; Neil Buccino and Susie Yang asked the board to protect Dharma Drum's property rights while welcoming the neighboring spiritual community; Jing Hong and Tom Chu raised traffic, safety, drainage, and setback concerns. - After public comment, the applicant requested a brief recess to confer with its client. The transcript records no motion or vote on this amended application before the board moved to the next case. Case E20-2026: 779 New Durham Road House of Worship - The applicant, 779 New Durham Edison LLC, proposed an 11,236-square-foot, one-story, 24-foot-tall house of worship for the Ismaili community in the LI zone. The plan included 154 parking spaces (88 required), five ADA spaces, and three EV spaces. Relief sought included a D1 use variance, lot-depth and lot-width variances (241.79 feet vs. 275 feet; 139.99 feet vs. 150 feet), a parking setback of 10 feet vs. 15 feet, and a landscape-buffer waiver of 5 feet vs. 20 feet. - Applicant witnesses testified about operations: Friday-Sunday morning prayers 3:30-6 a.m.; evening services 6-9 p.m. daily; Saturday religious education 2-9 p.m.; roughly 20 volunteers; weekday attendance 55-85, Friday evenings 150-200, weekends 125-150; three high holidays (Feb. 12, Mar. 21, Oct. 12) with 375-400 attendees. There would be no kitchen, no outdoor PA system, and no on-site living quarters. - Traffic engineer Jay Troutman testified the exit driveway would be right-turn-only per Middlesex County expectations and that operations would be acceptable even in a worst-case weekday 5-6 p.m. overlap. Planner Christine Cafone testified houses of worship are inherently beneficial, meeting the Sica balancing test and the enhanced fourth prong under the Monarch decision. - Board professionals noted the need for Middlesex County coordination, snow-storage planning, lighting details, NJDEP 2023 stormwater standards, and a fire chief letter requiring an additional hydrant and fire truck turning-radius compliance. - Public comment: Amy Ryan of 10 Bass Court presented photos of recent crashes, including a June 2026 car entering a backyard, and cited flooding, lighting, noise, and traffic hazards; she urged denial. Joanne Mangles of 10 Bass Court, president of the Edison AARP (159 members), raised flooding and sound-abatement concerns. Randall Saldana of 778 New Durham Road cited crash history, cumulative traffic with the proposed gas station/convenience store at 764 New Durham Road, and the 3:30 a.m. service start; he asked the board to deny. Venu Gopal Madhav of 780 New Durham Road agreed and asked for denial. - The board requested additional testimony on Middlesex County review, an occupancy calculation covering the classrooms, social hall, and lobby, and possible additional buffers to reduce light spillage. The case was carried to December 15, 2026, 7 p.m., without further notice. Key Outcomes - Unanimous denial of Z15-2022 (American Outdoor Advertising) on remand. - Unanimous approval of minutes, Z8-2025, and Z24-2026. - Z12-2026 and Z16-2026 carried to November 10, 2026; Z24-2022 carried to a later date with re-notice. - Amended Z21-2024 received no recorded vote and was not announced as carried. - E20-2026 carried to December 15, 2026 for additional testimony and conditions.

The Edison Planning Board met on October 19, 2026, to adopt several resolutions, hear testimony on two applications, and address public comments. The meeting included the approval of time extensions, a site plan approval, a denial, and a preliminary investigation authorization. A minor subdivision application was approved, and a proposed car wash application was continued to a future meeting. Consent Calendar - Blueberry Village Incorporated, P02 2024 – Extension of time for preliminary and final site plan approval for three years (motion approved, unanimous vote). - ARMA Contracting LLC, P08 2025 – Extension of time for preliminary and final site plan approval for 90 days (motion approved, unanimous vote). - 135 Whitman Renewal LLC, P07 2024 – Amended preliminary and final site plan approval (motion approved, unanimous vote). - Raren Plaza 3 LLC, P06 2026 – Preliminary and final site plan approval (motion approved, unanimous vote). - Narali Patel, P07 2026 – Preliminary and final site plan denial (motion approved, unanimous vote). - Preliminary investigation of 1021 and 1027 Amboy Avenue study area (motion approved, unanimous vote). Public Comments & Testimony - No public comments were made during the hearing for the minor subdivision or the car wash application. Discussion Items - Minor Two‑Lot Subdivision (Case P5265) – 117 & 87 Sunfield Avenue The application sought a minor subdivision to split an existing 15.35‑acre lot into two lots (Lot A: 13.09 acres, Lot B: 2.26 acres) for financing purposes. The applicant’s attorney, Michael Videello, introduced the case. Gregory Oman, the civil engineer, testified that no site improvements were proposed and that the subdivision required minor bulk variances due to lot shape: a minimum lot depth variance for Lot B (248.1 feet vs. 275 feet required) and driveway setback variances for both lots (0 feet for Lot A, 1.4 feet for Lot B, against a 5‑foot requirement). A parking variance was also requested because Lot B would have 23 spaces instead of the required 25, though the site overall meets parking requirements. The board’s engineer, Mr. Carly, noted refinements the applicant had adopted and had no issues with the variances. The professional planner, Christine Nazarel Cafone, testified that the bulk variances met the positive and negative criteria under the statute, as there were no physical changes to the site. After closing the public portion, the board voted to approve the application with conditions, including compliance with review letters and submission of a license agreement for a fenced area used by the adjacent expo center. The motion passed unanimously. - Car Wash Application (Case P11 2026) – National Express Car Wash 2, LLC, 610 Route 1 The applicant, Duncan Prime (attorney), presented plans for demolition of the existing Red Carpet Inn motel and construction of a new car wash with a 5,342‑square‑foot building, one automated tunnel, 23 vacuum spaces, and stacking for 45 vehicles. The site is 1.3 acres in the G-BH district. Gabriel Shookman, partner in El Car Wash, described the company’s operations, employee ownership, community involvement, and membership‑based business model (85‑90% members). Operating hours would be 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. (with earlier Sunday hours). Afton Savitz, the project engineer, detailed site improvements: reduced impervious coverage (from 68.9% to 64.2%), new landscaping, lighting with no sky glow, a snow‑removal plan, and water reclamation. The board and its professionals raised several concerns, including: Queuing and Traffic: Traffic engineer Matthew Seckler stated that during peak hours the expected queue would be 9‑10 cars, well within the site’s 45‑car stacking capacity. He noted that the tunnel can process up to 150 cars per hour. However, board members questioned whether the driveway could be blocked by backup from the nearby Wooding Avenue intersection. Seckler acknowledged this but said the site’s moderate trip generation and ability to adjust tunnel speed mitigate the issue. The board requested further analysis of the Wooding Avenue queue and a weave analysis on Stony Road. Icing and Water Runoff: The applicant testified that the 150‑foot tunnel, extensive blowers, and heated concrete near the exit would keep cars dry and prevent icing on Route 1. Noise: A noise study was requested; the applicant agreed to provide one before the next hearing. Signage: The board asked for detailed testimony regarding sign locations and any needed variances; the applicant will provide that at the continued hearing. Architectural Drawings: The plans were not signed or sealed; the applicant agreed to correct this. Outcome and Continuance: After discussion, the board granted a continuance to December 14, 2026, with no further re‑notice required. The applicant is to bring back supplemental information, including a traffic analysis addressing Wooding Avenue queue, a right‑out‑only exit to Stony Road, an acoustical study, signed architectural plans, and full signage testimony. Key Outcomes - Approved Resolutions: All six resolutions (time extensions, site plan approvals, denial, and preliminary investigation) were approved unanimously. - Minor Subdivision Approved: Case P5265 (117 & 87 Sunfield Avenue) was approved with conditions, including compliance with professional review letters and submission of a license agreement. - Car Wash Application Continued: Case P11 2026 (610 Route 1) was carried to December 14, 2026, without re‑notice. The applicant must provide additional traffic analysis, a right‑out‑only exit design, an acoustical study, signed architectural plans, and signage testimony.

The Edison Township Council held a combined work session and regular meeting on October 14, 2026, beginning at 6 p.m. The agenda included a resolution recognizing National History Day students, introduction of an ordinance to prohibit data centers, approval of a consent calendar of resolutions, and extensive public comment focusing on Flock automated license plate reader cameras and data centers. The meeting was extended to 10:12 p.m. National History Day Recognition - The council unanimously adopted a resolution commending students from Woodrow Wilson Middle School and J.P. Stevens High School for their participation in the National History Day program. Council members and the public praised the students and their advisors. - Public comment: Wendy Hurwitz (club founder) and Marissa Salah (teacher) thanked the council. John Tar (Cultural Arts Commission) commended the students. Consent Calendar - All resolutions listed on the agenda were approved in a block vote, except Resolution 520 which was pulled for a separate roll call vote. The consent calendar included: - Resolution 521: Five‑year renewal of Verizon wireless services (state contract; amount not stated). - Resolution 523: $5,518,000 for road paving (funded from a previously bonded $7 million; came under budget). - Resolution 524: $1,000,000 for Town Hall parking lot improvements. - Resolution 535: Exact‑dollar change order for contract design resources. - Resolution 522: Renewal of grant‑consulting services with Millennium Strategies. - Resolution 520 was approved separately: Authorizing settlement with JVS for the Glendale property, including a land swap and a $50,000 payment to the township. Adopted 6–0–1 (Council Vice President Kentos abstained). Discussion Items - Data Center Ordinance: Council debated an ordinance (2289‑2026) to amend Chapter 37 (Zoning) to designate data centers as prohibited uses in all zones. Council President Coyle and Council Vice President Kentos expressed reservations about a complete ban, preferring strict regulations. Councilman Brescher and Councilman Petil strongly supported the ban, citing concerns about utility costs, environmental impact, and quality of life. Councilman Schmuel noted the importance of ratable revenue but acknowledged current zoning already prohibits data centers. The ordinance was introduced on first reading (7‑0), with a public hearing set for October 26, 2026. - JVS Glendale Settlement: Council members questioned the acreage and land swap details. Councilman Brescher requested a meeting with the township attorney to review the property maps before the final vote. The Business Administrator and attorney confirmed the settlement includes a recorded map and deed. - Verizon Wireless Contract: Councilman Brescher asked the administration to explore competitive options, noting state‑contract pricing may not be the lowest. - Police Vehicle Purchase: The council discussed purchasing one Ford Police Interceptor; Councilman Brescher suggested evaluating hybrid or electric vehicles for future fleet use. The Business Administrator noted lifecycle analyses have favored conventional vehicles for traffic units. - Flock Cameras: While the contract had already been approved, several council members and the public debated the expansion. Council President Coyle offered to form a committee to further discuss concerns about privacy, data retention, and oversight. Public Comments & Testimony - Data Centers – Opposition: A large majority of speakers supported the ban. Samita (J.P. Stevens student) warned about environmental harm and the impact of AI on learning; Walt Stoshel called for a complete ban with no loopholes; John Shu contrasted large‑scale AI data centers with existing facilities; others cited water and electricity usage. - Data Centers – Cautious: Anthony T. Ameron urged more thorough study and pointed to Loudoun County (VA) as an example where data centers coexist with strong tax bases. - Flock Cameras – Opposition: Numerous residents spoke against the expansion. John Shu raised Fourth Amendment and misuse concerns; Gabriel Franco urged a public vote; Patrice Swerbrick asked for crime data before proceeding; Laura Ramirez, Liana Liu, Lawrence Liu, Amon, Jordan White, Adair Dick, and others cited privacy, profiling, AI inaccuracies, and data sharing with external agencies. Many called for rescission or a public ballot. No residents spoke in favor of the expansion during the meeting. - Other Topics: - Trisha Lensis: Reported dangerous street parking on Nevsky Street during mosque services; requested no‑parking signs. Administration will evaluate through the traffic unit. - Gudrender Dhamija: Questioned the $1 million parking lot project and suggested direct tax relief for seniors. - Elizabeth Conway: Criticized the voting process on the Care One zoning application (approved after closed‑door negotiation) and noted the lack of women on the zoning board. - Neil Jareth: Described the Care One board’s reversal under a revised settlement; asked the council to consider an appeal. - Dr. Mali Him Mohammed Poor: Requested animal‑crossing signs, lower speed limits, and traffic calming, especially near parks. - McKenna Lundy: Raised commercial truck traffic and speeding on Vineyard Road. - Sarah Nasser: Reported on the successful Friends of the Library 5K run on October 11, thanking the council for support. - Walt Stoshel: Commented on federal and state budget impacts, health‑care costs, tariffs, and the need for electric‑vehicle fleet conversion. - Several residents asked for sidewalks, better road maintenance, and community input on major decisions. Key Outcomes - Resolution of Recognition adopted unanimously. - Data Center Ordinance introduced (7‑0); public hearing set for October 26, 2026. - Consent Agenda approved (all but 520); Resolution 520 adopted 6‑0‑1. - Flock Cameras: Council President committed to establishing a committee to address resident concerns; no vote taken at this meeting. - Care One Zoning Decision: Council acknowledged the statutory appeal process but declined to take a position; the public was advised to follow proper legal procedure. - Traffic Safety: Requests for stop signs on Safran Avenue, parking restrictions on Nevsky Street, and truck enforcement on Vineyard Road will be reviewed by the traffic unit and public works. - Next Meetings: Data center public hearing, October 26, 2026; potential committee on Flock cameras to be scheduled; follow‑up meeting on JVS property maps for council members.

The Township of Edison Zoning Board of Adjustment held a regular meeting on October 13, 2026, to consider three applications: a bulk variance for a fire-damaged home reconstruction, a use variance and site plan for a PSE&G training campus expansion, and a settlement hearing for a proposed assisted living facility under federal court order. The board approved the first two applications unanimously and, after reconsideration, approved the third application with a charitable contribution condition. Consent Calendar - Minutes of the September 29, 2026, meeting were approved unanimously. - One case (Z 31-2025, Tanujia Addiani) was carried to December 15, 2026. Public Comments & Testimony - Public Comments on Case Z 46-2017 (Care One): Multiple residents from King Street, Lewis Court, and Inman Avenue spoke in opposition. Concerns included: - Traffic safety on narrow, single-lane Inman Avenue, especially near schools; speaker criticized the August traffic study for not reflecting school-year conditions. - Noise from generators, trash trucks, and snow removal disrupting residential quiet. - Impact on property values and quality of life from a three-story commercial building in a residential zone. - Poor maintenance of the existing Care One facility, including dead trees and debris. - Fire safety and emergency evacuation risks for memory care residents. - One resident cited a personal car accident on Inman Avenue. - A representative from Wardlaw-Hartridge School described existing flooding damage from stormwater runoff and opposed increased impervious coverage. - Public Comments on Case Z 25-2026 (Sheeman): No public comments. - Public Comments on Case Z 21-2026 (PSE&G): No public comments. Discussion Items - Case Z 25-2026 – Patricia Sheeman (13 Short Street): Applicant sought bulk variances to rebuild a single-family dwelling destroyed by fire on May 15, 2025. Proposed variances included building coverage (31.58% vs. 23% allowed), minimum lot area (3,100 sq ft vs. 7,500 required), front yard setback (14.35 ft vs. 25 ft), and combined side yard setback (9.7 ft vs. 18 ft). The architect testified that the house would be slightly repositioned to improve side clearance and add a small front porch, with minimal increase in building coverage (26 sq ft) and lot coverage (320 sq ft for driveway/walk). No public comment. Board found the request de minimis and not detrimental. - Case Z 21-2026 – PSE&G (101 Silver Lake Road): Applicant sought preliminary and final site plan approval with a D1 use variance to construct a one-story modular classroom and mock residential training structures (training village) on an existing 88-acre utility training campus. Testimony from PSE&G’s training manager described the need for realistic hands-on training using simulated gas leaks (compressed air, not live gas) and electrical disconnects. Hours remain 7:30 a.m. to 3 p.m., no increase in trainees (max 30). The project engineer noted 13 trees to be removed, 17 new trees proposed, reduction in impervious coverage by 11,000 sq ft, and stormwater management improvements. A board engineer confirmed the plan was competent with minor conditions. No public comment. Unanimous approval. - Case Z 46-2017 – Care One at Birchwood (1350 Inman Avenue) – Settlement Hearing: This was a Whispering Woods hearing on a revised settlement agreement following federal court ruling that Edison’s zoning code violated the Fair Housing Act by barring assisted living in residential zones. The proposed memory care facility (114 units, 122 beds) replaced an earlier denied application (2019) and a July 2026 settlement rejection. Key changes: building height reduced to two stories on the east side near Lewis Court; generator, trash enclosure, and loading moved to the west side between existing skilled nursing and proposed building; updated traffic study (August 2026 counts, adjusted for season and growth) showing negligible impact (one new trip every six minutes); acoustical study showing generator compliance with 65 dBA daytime standard; addition of an eight-foot fence and enhanced landscaping. The board attorney and township attorney confirmed collaborative settlement negotiations. Public opposition was extensive (see Public Comments). The applicant’s litigation counsel warned that rejection would likely lead to a $40 million damages verdict paid by the township (via insurance/taxes). Key Outcomes - Case Z 25-2026 (Sheeman): Motion to approve carried unanimously (7-0). Conditions include compliance with engineer’s report and code. - Case Z 21-2026 (PSE&G): Motion to approve carried unanimously (7-0). Conditions incorporate all testimony and board engineer’s conditions. - Case Z 46-2017 (Care One): Initial motion (by Mr. DeVay) to approve with condition that applicant waive $150,000 settlement payment was ruled invalid; withdrawn. A subsequent motion to approve (by Mr. DeVay, amended by Mr. Schneider) with acceptance of a $100,000 charitable donation for traffic improvements failed 4-2 (Mr. Johnny and Mr. DeVay dissenting). After a closed session, the board reconsidered; the applicant offered $350,000 for Inman Avenue traffic improvements. Motion to reconsider passed 6-0 (one member stated intent to resign). The final motion to approve the settlement (with the $350,000 donation condition) passed on roll call: Mr. Chabra (yes), Mr. Sarrito (yes), Mr. Johnny (yes), Mr. Schneider (yes), Mr. DeVay (yes), Chairman Kemba (yes). The meeting was then adjourned.

The Township of Edison Zoning Board of Adjustment held a special meeting on September 29, 2026, starting at 7:00 PM in Council Chambers. The primary agenda item was Case Z11-2025, Chevette Developers at 90 Municipal Boulevard, seeking preliminary and final site plan approval with bulk and use variances to construct an eight-story luxury multifamily apartment building. The board heard testimony from the applicant's professionals but did not reach a decision; the case was carried to November 24, 2026. Consent Calendar - Minutes Approval: Minutes of September 22, 2026 were approved (motion by Mr. Schneider, second by Mr. Patel; unanimous roll call). - Resolutions Adopted: - Z6-2026 (Rajesh Kumar) – approved unanimously. - Z11-2026 (NJ American Water) – approved unanimously. - C14-2026 (Priyanc Patel) – approved unanimously. Announcements & Carried Cases - KZ2-2020 (Lamar Advertising a pen LLC) – withdrawn. - KZ37-2025 (Ali Enterprises, 764 New Dorham Road) – carried to November 10, 2026. - Z19-2026 (Hackensack Meridian JFK at 60A Edison Ave and 99 Turner Ave) – carried to November 10, 2026. - Z25-2026 (Patricia Seaman at 13 Short Street) – notice served. - The board chair outlined procedures for public comment and board conduct. Discussion Items: Case Z11-2025 – Chevette Developers (90 Municipal Boulevard) - Application Summary: The applicant seeks a use variance (multifamily residential not permitted in TC zone), height variance (8 stories vs. 3 stories permitted), FAR variance (proposed 1.52 vs. 0.35 permitted), and parking variances. The site is 61,865 sq ft in the Crown Plaza development, previously approved in 2023 for an office building but not constructed. Proposed: 94 units (3 studio, 84 one-bedroom, 7 two-bedroom) with 62 on-site parking spaces (188 required by RSIS) plus shared parking via a 1982 easement. - Engineer Testimony (John DuPont) : - Existing lot is paved with a parking lot and helipad; impervious increase only 3,650 sq ft. - Stormwater management plan will comply with 2023 regulations (REAL rules held in abeyance until July 2027). - Variances needed: lot area (61,865 sq ft vs 80,000 required), lot width (235 ft vs 300 ft), front yard setback (as low as 44 ft vs 100 ft), side yard setbacks, impervious coverage (68.2%), parking setback, and number of stories. - Board Professional (Mr. Carly) highlighted outstanding items: fire department review for ladder truck capacity, staging area for sanitation vehicles, lighting plan (needs to meet ordinance), utility plan (hydrant, water pressure), emergency generator, and compliance with administrative code. - Mr. DuPont confirmed willingness to address all items; fire and police reviews had not yet been received. - Architect Testimony (Satyan Raval) : - Building will be non-combustible, reinforced concrete construction; eight stories (complies with 100 ft height limit). - Exterior materials: masonry stucco, fiber cement panels, metal cladding. - Two elevators (one stretcher-capable). - Confirmed need for fire command center, standpipes, emergency generator per code; will coordinate with construction and fire officials. - No ground-floor retail. - Board Members asked about affordable housing set-aside; applicant will confirm with township affordable housing planner. - Traffic Engineer Testimony (John Ray) : - Traffic generation estimated at 36 AM peak hour trips and 37 PM peak hour trips (significantly less than the previously approved office/restaurant use which would have generated 70 AM and 147 PM trips). - Parking demand analysis: using Rutgers 2023 study, projected demand of 90-100 spaces vs. RSIS requirement of 188; shared parking with adjacent office lots (over 1,400 spaces) works well due to complementary peak times. - Parking counts in Crown Plaza lot showed maximum 184 cars at 9:30 AM, with 75% office occupancy. - Board questioned pedestrian access, striping of dedicated spaces, and public safety vehicle circulation. Mr. Ray recommended each unit have at least one assigned space. - Mr. Carly noted RSIS is the statutory standard but Rutgers study is a useful metric; parking agreement (1982 easement) needs to be supplemented with a formal shared parking agreement. Key Outcomes - No Vote Taken: The board determined that critical reviews from fire and police departments were missing, and several engineering and planning issues remained unresolved. The case was carried to November 24, 2026, at 7:00 PM in Council Chambers. No additional notice will be sent. - Conditions for Next Hearing: - Applicant must obtain fire and police department reports (including fire truck access, hydrant location, emergency generator, and compliance with high-rise fire safety codes). - Confirm affordable housing set-aside requirements with the township’s affordable housing planner. - Provide a detailed shared parking agreement (beyond the 1982 easement) and indicate specifically assigned parking spaces for residents. - Address traffic circulation, pedestrian crosswalks, and signage. - Refine lighting and landscaping plans per board professional’s comments. - Consent for Continuation: The board granted consent to act until at least the end of November 2026. - Meeting Adjourned: Motion by Mr. Schneider, second by Mr. Johnny; all in favor.

The Edison Township Municipal Council met in combined work session and regular meeting on Wednesday, September 23, 2026, with all seven council members present. No agenda or minutes were provided in the source materials. The council adopted a direct-support-professionals recognition week, approved two property acquisition ordinances, voted to table the proposed bamboo/property-maintenance ordinance, passed a police security technology resolution by a 6–1 vote, and heard departmental reports, public comment, and project updates. Resolutions of Recognition - The council unanimously adopted a resolution recognizing September 13–19, 2026, as Direct Support Professional Recognition Week, honoring the more than 30,000 direct support professionals in New Jersey who support children and adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Consent Calendar & Departmental Resolutions - Work session items included an amendment to the county tax-map maintenance agreement; the township is responsible for 75% of the maintenance under the contract, which is needed for the township’s revaluation. - The finance/audit action plan was discussed: the state’s comments were reduced from eight to five items, including larger health-benefit reserves, timelier municipal court receipt reporting, timelier health department reporting, cleanup of capital/general fund cash deficits older than five years, and faster grant reporting. - Council members discussed small refunds/reimbursements for seniors, veterans, and disabled residents; administrative sign-off for amounts under $200 was proposed, but officials said state finance law requires council approval. - Other departmental items reviewed included a DPW grounds-equipment purchase for the township fleet, health department resolutions, fire department items, and routine finance items. - The consent agenda was adopted by roll call with Resolution 512 held out for a separate vote. Public Comments & Testimony - Public commenter Anthony asked about the cost, annual contract terms, drone capabilities, and officer-replacement implications of the Flock/drone security technology. He said he was 100% for using technology but called cost a big issue. Administration and police answered that the approximate cost is $589,000, funded through asset forfeiture rather than taxpayer dollars, under a three-year contract. - Police Chief added that Edison already has a smaller drone, the department closes out approximately 90% of crimes, up to about 92%, compared with a national average of about 12–13%, and neighboring towns using the technology include Perth Amboy, Elizabeth, Lyndon, and Woodbridge. - Elizabeth Conway, 20 Netherwood Circle, asked about Resolution 509, a not-to-exceed $850,000 resolution for vendors; she was told the funds are in the current budget and are being used now. She also asked whether Resolution 512 had an exact amount; the answer was $589,000, a flat amount rather than a not-to-exceed figure. - No one spoke during the oral petition/remarks portion. Discussion Items - Bamboo/poison ivy ordinance (2288-2026): The proposed ordinance would amend Chapter 15 to prohibit new planting of running bamboo townwide, add poison ivy regulations, establish municipal right-of-way jurisdiction limits, and send pre-existing private-lot disputes to the civilian court system. Several council members objected to including poison ivy, saying it is a native plant, provides soil stabilization and wildlife value, and could create burdens along wooded/township boundaries. The township attorney said the ordinance needs legal rework for statutory soundness, separation-of-powers issues, and fine/violation procedures, and that Chapter 15 already covers hazardous noxious growth in public rights-of-way. The council unanimously tabled it for attorney and code-enforcement review. - Police technology resolution (512): Councilmember Brescher opposed the Flock/drone expansion on privacy and moral grounds, calling it invasive and arguing the cost could instead hire two police officers. Councilmember Patel supported the technology as an efficiency and safety tool, and Council President Coyle strongly supported it as a public-safety and crime-fighting investment. The resolution passed on a separate vote with Brescher as the sole no vote. - Project updates: The Stelton Community Center is being expedited with the township engineer to meet a November grant-funding deadline. A town center/facility opening was expected early next year, pending PSE&G electrical work. A short-term rental ordinance from neighboring towns is under administration review, and a data-center ordinance is expected at the October council meeting. - Library crosswalks: For the North Edison Library, the engineer said the Grove-side crossing could be made safer with rapid rectangular flashing beacons, signage, and striping; the Library Place crossing would require an ADA ramp on library property. The council asked DPW to work on improvements. - Amboy Avenue sidewalks: The engineer reported that bid documents are expected by the end of next week, with a base bid of roadway resurfacing and alternates for stamped concrete or pavers. Construction could begin late autumn if weather permits; proposed planting areas will include subsurface seepage for stormwater. - Community announcements: Leaf bag distribution is available at 745 New Durham Road through October 21; the police department is hosting a coat drive September 8–25; the Fall Family Spectacular was moved to October 17, a date change Council President Coyle questioned after decades in September; an Indian American Women Entrepreneurs Association expo is set for September 27; and the Environment Commission will plant 482 plants on September 26. Key Outcomes - Ordinance 2286-2026 was adopted unanimously: a bond ordinance appropriating $600,000 for property acquisition and authorizing $570,000 in bonds/notes. - Ordinance 2287-2026 was adopted unanimously: authorizing acquisition of Block 82.14, Lot 3.02 for a public purpose. - Ordinance 2288-2026 (bamboo/poison ivy) was tabled unanimously; legal and code enforcement will rework it before it returns. - The consent agenda was approved with Resolution 512 pulled. - Resolution 512 (security equipment including Flock/drone technology) was approved 6–1, with Councilmember Brescher voting no. - Council directed the attorney and code-enforcement staff to review the revised bamboo ordinance, DPW to work on library crosswalk improvements, and the engineer to complete Amboy Avenue bid specifications.

The Township of Edison Zoning Board of Adjustment held its regular meeting on September 22, 2026, at 7:00 PM in council chambers. The board considered three main applications: a residential addition at 4 Burlington Court (continued), a residential addition at 3 Cottonwood Circle (approved), and a Middlesex Water Company water tank proposal at 200 Tinglin Lane (continued). The meeting also included approval of prior minutes and a resolution, as well as the continuation of a separate Hackensack Meridian JFK case to a future date. Consent Calendar - Minutes of August 25, 2026: Approved by roll call vote (all in favor). - Resolution Z10 2026 (Middlesex Water): Approved by roll call vote (all in favor). Public Comments & Testimony Case Z16 2026 – Middlesex Water Company (200 Tinglin Lane) Multiple residents spoke, raising concerns about: - The need for a 5-million-gallon tank vs. a smaller 2- or 3-million-gallon tank. - Visual impact, especially in winter when leaves are gone; requests for a comprehensive siting study. - Noise impacts from pumps and emergency generator; questions about modeling assumptions (e.g., still winter nights). - Safety and catastrophic failure; potential flooding of surrounding homes. - Impact on property values, psychological stress, and loss of tree canopy. - Presence of endangered species (spotted turtle) in the wetlands. - Request for the board to consider why 25 other sites were rejected before choosing this residential neighborhood. - Construction noise and duration (estimated 12 months). - One resident expressed that no tangible benefit to Edison residents was identified beyond water pressure improvement. Case Z19 2026 – Hackensack Meridian JFK (continued to September 29) No public comment was taken as the case was not heard. Discussion Items Case Z9 2026 – Sam Ratmandel (4 Burlington Court) - Applicant sought bulk and D variances (rear yard setback, building coverage, FAR) to add to existing single-family dwelling. - Applicant testified about family needs (wife’s medical condition requiring ground-floor bedroom, elderly parents from India). - Planner Paul Fletcher testified that variances were due to irregular lot shape and undersized lot (9,500 sq ft vs. typical 12,500). He argued no adverse impact. - Board members questioned lack of neighborhood analysis for building coverage and FAR. Applicant offered informal observations but board found proofs insufficient. - Board requested that the applicant provide professional planning analysis at the next meeting. - Outcome: Case continued to October 20, 2026. Case C24 2026 – J Badiani (3 Cottonwood Circle) - Applicant sought bulk and D variances (side yard, building coverage, FAR, rear deck) to add first- and second-floor addition to existing ranch. - Family of seven (three children, elderly parents) currently in small house; need more space and a ground-floor bedroom for parents. - Contractor (Neil Agarwal) and architect (Andrew Pod Berezniak) testified to scope: two-car garage, master suite, four bedrooms, study, deck. - Planner Christine Nizaro (Cafone) testified: D variance for FAR (0.41 vs 0.37), C variances for side yard (7.16 ft vs 10 ft), building coverage (22.61% vs 20%), and rear deck setback. She argued the site can handle the excess FAR, noting the property is undersized and the master plan supports rehabilitation of older housing stock. She highlighted that total impervious coverage remains under the 40% limit. - Board questions focused on side yard setback, deck encroachment, and a human door on garage. Applicant offered to relocate the door if needed. - Public portion: No one from within 200 feet or outside appeared to speak. - Outcome: Motion to approve by Mr. Chabra, second by Mr. Schneider. Roll call vote: 6-0 in favor. Approved unanimously. Case Z16 2026 – Middlesex Water Company (200 Tinglin Lane) - Applicant seeks site plan approval with D2 (expansion of nonconforming use), D6 (height variance), and C variances (parking, accessory structure height) to construct a 5-million-gallon ground-mounted water storage tank (125 ft diameter, 65 ft tall) and a pump station on a 27-acre site in the RAA zone. - Vice President Brian Carr testified: tank is needed to meet DEP storage requirements (50% of average day demand) and to replace a tank lost during Hurricane Sandy in Carteret. The company evaluated 25 sites over a decade; this site was chosen due to size, proximity to transmission mains, and ability to use ground storage (lower visual impact than elevated tank). The height (65 ft) is driven by wetland constraints limiting the footprint. - Engineer Joseph Weaver presented site plans, setbacks (all greatly exceed minimums), building coverage (1.2% vs 10% allowed), and impervious coverage (2.1% vs 25%). The tank will be painted a beige color to blend with winter trees; summer tree canopy (80–90 ft) will largely screen it. - Acoustical expert Mark Bastasch testified: noise modeling (ISO 9613) with conservative assumptions (all equipment operating, no ground absorption) predicts levels below Edison’s 50 dBA nighttime limit. The design includes a “room within a room” for pumps and no louvers. - Planner Christine Nizaro testified: the use is inherently beneficial (public utility). She cited the 2024 Master Plan’s goals for infrastructure upgrades and resiliency, and argued the Monarch Communities test is satisfied because the variances will not substantially impair the zone plan. - Board professionals (Mr. Curley) confirmed engineering issues are resolved, and recommended conditions: six-month post-construction look-back on lighting, noise, and landscaping. - Public comment was extensive (see Public Comments section). - After public comment closed, the applicant indicated readiness for summation but the board decided to continue the case to allow time for additional information (siting study, wetland credits) and to have six members present. - Outcome: Case continued to October 20, 2026. Case Z19 2026 – Hackensack Meridian JFK (60A Edison Ave & 99 Turner Ave) - Not heard due to time constraints. Applicant agreed to carry to September 29, 2026 at 7:00 PM. Key Outcomes - Case Z9 (4 Burlington Court): Continued to October 20, 2026 for additional planning testimony. - Case C24 (3 Cottonwood Circle): Approved (6-0 roll call). Applicant granted all requested variances and site plan approval. - Case Z16 (200 Tinglin Lane): Continued to October 20, 2026 for summation and vote. Board expects applicant to address public concerns regarding siting alternatives and wetland credits. - Case Z19 (Hackensack Meridian): Continued to September 29, 2026. - The board also took a brief recess and handled scheduling of future cases.

The Edison Planning Board met on September 14, 2026, under generator power after a building power outage. The meeting had a hard stop at 10:00 PM due to a scheduled complete power shutdown. The board handled routine approvals, multiple site plan applications, a redevelopment determination, and several case continuances. Key votes included unanimous approvals for most items and a tied vote (3-3) resulting in denial for a contested office building application. Consent Calendar - Zoning Board Minutes (August 17, 2026): Adopted unanimously. - Zoning Board Resolution P08-2026 (Niadi Shaw / minor subdivision): Adopted unanimously. - Planning Board Resolutions: - P05-2026 (DOCA Cabinet, LLC – preliminary/final site plan): Approved unanimously. - P11-2023 (Yashra J5 Realty – preliminary/final site plan with conditional use): Approved unanimously. - Planning Board Minutes (July 13, 2026): Approved unanimously. - Extension Requests: - P02-2024 (Blueberry Village): Granted three consecutive one-year extensions (as-of-right) by unanimous vote. - P08-2025 (Arma Contracting LLC): Granted a 90‑day extension (second request) by unanimous vote. Public Comments & Testimony - Redevelopment Study (1021/1027 Amboy Avenue): Two residents spoke. One expressed support for the redevelopment and raised concerns about inadequate street lighting and pedestrian safety near schools. The second (Kyle Rajasing, a neighboring property owner) voiced concerns about traffic from the existing yoga studio and requested that no driveway access be placed on Brower Avenue; he was informed that detailed design would come later. - 105 Fieldcrest Avenue (Warehouse Application): No public comments. - 2116 Oak Tree Road (Physical Therapy Office): Two residents testified: - Walter Stochel (neighbor): Expressed concerns about an existing oak tree removal, fence placement, and landscaping buffers. After the applicant agreed to extend the fence and add landscaping along his property line, Mr. Stochel stated he was satisfied with the building’s new residential appearance. - Bruce Diamond (resident): Questioned whether the proposed building was too large for the lot and the single‑practitioner use, noting the extra space could be repurposed. The board noted conditions would limit future changes. Discussion Items - Determination of Area in Need of Redevelopment (Resolution R 435-07-2026): Planner Hank Bignell presented the study for Block 728, Lots 1.02 and 3.02 (1021 & 1027 Amboy Avenue). He explained the redevelopment process, concluded that criteria A (substandard/unsafe buildings) and D (obsolescence, overcrowding, faulty arrangement) applied, and noted the existing buildings were underutilized, in poor condition, and had unsafe parking configurations. He highlighted that redevelopment (as opposed to rehabilitation) would allow extended tax abatement of up to 30 years. The board unanimously accepted the report and voted to send it to the Township Council. - P07‑2024 Amended – 135 Whitman Renewal LLC (Warehouse/Outdoor Storage): The applicant sought amended site plan approval to replace two previously approved warehouses with a single 10,125 sq ft warehouse and fully screened outdoor storage. No variances were required. Engineer Santiago testified the plan reduced impervious coverage, met all bulk standards, and improved the tree replacement deficit. The board approved with conditions: storage stacked no higher than screening, submission of a truck turning template, trucks limited to left-turn-only exits, and offer of Title 39 enforcement to the township. - P06‑2026 – Rarit and Plaza 3 LLC (105 Fieldcrest Avenue – Warehouse): The applicant proposed demolishing a 163,000 sq ft, 6‑story office building and constructing a 157,500 sq ft warehouse (40 ft height) with office space, 129 parking spaces (45 shared with adjacent lot), and stormwater basins. Three bulk variances were requested: monument sign separation (785.9 ft vs. 1,600 ft required), monument sign side‑yard setback (15 ft vs. 40 ft), and combined fence/retaining wall height (up to 14.7 ft vs. 10 ft). The planner justified the variances under C2 criteria (benefits outweigh detriments). Testimony confirmed the use reduces traffic and impervious coverage. The board approved unanimously with conditions to comply with professional reports and return for any plan changes. - 2116 Oak Tree Road – Narale Patel (Physical Therapy Office): This was a reduced‑scale resubmission after a prior denial by the Zoning Board. The applicant (physical therapist) proposed to demolish a single‑family home and construct a 3,241 sq ft, two‑story building with a residential appearance. Relief sought: rear setback (25 ft vs. 60 ft required), loading space waiver, and sign setback (8.5 ft vs. 15 ft). Engineer/planner DuPont argued variances were justified under C1 (hardship due to lot constraints) and C2 criteria. The board discussed parking calculations (10 spaces provided meets requirement with EV credits) and operational details (single therapist, two exam rooms, one assistant, one admin). Public testimony raised concerns about building size and impact on neighboring backyards. The board considered conditions limiting basement to mechanical/storage, keeping second‑floor unfinished, adding landscaping buffer, and no rear second‑floor windows. The motion to approve failed on a tie vote (3‑3: Lay no, Chinnasami yes, Gochair yes, Councilman Schmuel no, Vice Chair Reeder no, Chairman Sindelski yes), resulting in denial. Key Outcomes - Unanimous approvals granted for: Consent items, extension requests, 135 Whitman Avenue amended site plan, and 105 Fieldcrest Avenue warehouse with variances. - Redevelopment determination (Amboy Avenue): Board voted to accept the planner’s report and forward it to the Township Council for further action. - Denial at 2116 Oak Tree Road: Motion to approve physical therapy office failed 3‑3; application is denied. - Carried cases: P04‑2026 (Torsiela Organization, 44 Lincoln Highway) and P09‑2026 (Tesla Inc., 1199 Amboy Avenue) were both carried to October 19, 2026, with no re‑notice required. - The meeting adjourned at approximately 10:00 PM per the hard stop requirement.