Public Meetings - Edison, New Jersey

The Edison Township Council held its annual reorganization meeting on January 5, 2026, to elect leadership for the year, adopt a consent agenda, and receive public comment. All council members were present. The meeting included the swearing-in of a new council president and vice president, the approval of several resolutions, and extensive public testimony on a range of local issues. Key Votes & Elections - Council President: Councilmember Joe Coyle was nominated and elected unanimously by all eight council members, then sworn in. He delivered remarks emphasizing teamwork, public engagement, and legacy projects such as parks and infrastructure. - Council Vice President: Councilmember Robert J. Kentos was nominated and elected unanimously, then sworn in. He thanked colleagues and family, highlighting his commitment to serving residents and his role in planning the 250th anniversary of the United States. Consent Calendar - The council voted to amend the consent agenda by adding three resolutions for reappointments to the Zoning Board: R008 (Dan O'Gorman), R009 (Douglas Schneider), and R010 (Kevin …). The amendment passed unanimously. - The full consent agenda, including the three added resolutions and other routine items (R001 cash management plan, R003 temporary budget), was adopted by a unanimous roll-call vote. Public Comments & Testimony - Joel Bassoff questioned the temporary budget (R003), noting that appropriations appeared to exceed the statutory 26.25% limit when compared to the 2025 budget. The business administrator explained that the 26.25% applies to the entire municipal operations, including salaries and expenses, and that the temporary budget figures are consistent with that limit. - Margot Harris (former council president) apologized for omitting clerks and the Recreation Department in her closing remarks at the last meeting, welcomed new council members, and congratulated Coyle and Kentos. She also inquired about the Ferrante House project; the business administrator reported that DPW is developing an action plan addressing environmental issues. - Dr. Nasser extended New Year’s wishes, apologized for missing the inauguration, and questioned committee assignments for council liaisons, specifically whether attendance is required and how library liaison is selected. Council President Coyle and the town attorney responded that committee assignments are at the president’s discretion and attendance requirements depend on the specific body. - Elizabeth Conway requested that public comment time be restored to six minutes, praised the new council, and advocated for fuller representation on municipal committees. She also raised concerns about congestion on Inman Avenue from a water main construction project. Council President Coyle committed to investigating and improving communication. - Anthony D’Amore suggested on-screen contact information for council members during broadcasts, raised the possibility of a municipal utilities advisory board, and renewed a request for a crosswalk on Woodbridge Avenue near the Greenway to improve safety for students. Council President Coyle noted the road is county jurisdiction but agreed to follow up. - Maria Orchid congratulated new members and asked for updates on the deer population, utility rate assistance programs, and a centralized events calendar. Council President Coyle acknowledged the suggestions. - Aj Nagarajan welcomed new members, urged live TV streaming on platforms like YouTube (not just cable), requested traffic enforcement on Grove Avenue, and voiced concerns about traffic impacts from a proposed Inman Avenue golf course development. Council President Coyle promised to look into the streaming issue and noted that traffic studies are part of planning board reviews. Police Chief confirmed ongoing enforcement on Grove Avenue but deemed one-way conversion infeasible. - Benz requested restoration of six-minute public comment time and better snow plow information. Council Vice President Kentos provided snow plow route details (approximately 37 routes, 40+ trucks). Discussion Items - Council President’s Remarks: Coyle thanked colleagues, acknowledged the outgoing council president Margot Harris, and stressed the importance of listening to residents who cannot attend meetings. He left his email for public contact. - Council Vice President’s Remarks: Kentos thanked family, the mayor, and former councilmembers for their support, noting the historic 250th anniversary year. - Committee Assignments: In response to Dr. Nasser’s question, Coyle stated that assignments will be made after council members submit preferences; the town attorney added that liaison responsibilities vary. Key Outcomes - Joe Coyle sworn in as Council President for 2026. - Robert J. Kentos sworn in as Council Vice President. - Consent agenda (including three zoning board reappointments) adopted unanimously. - Council committed to reviewing committee assignments, exploring live TV streaming options, and following up on public concerns regarding traffic, sidewalks, the Ferrante House, and deer management. - The meeting adjourned without further business.

The combined meeting of the Edison Township Council convened on December 22, 2025, at 6:09 PM. The meeting included the adoption of two ordinances, tabling of a third, approval of multiple resolutions, and closing remarks from outgoing council members. Key topics included a controversial 32% salary increase for the mayor, a 30-year tax abatement for a senior housing development, and public comments on various township matters. Public Comments & Testimony - Joel Bassoff (Beach Lane, Edison) spoke against the mayor's salary ordinance (2268), arguing that the notice was defective (lacking time of meeting) and that a 32% raise for Mayor Joshi was “cynical, greedy, and a money grab.” He urged the council to delete the mayor's raise from the ordinance and defer any increase to the next term. - Elizabeth Conway (20 Netherwood Circle) asked whether the 32% raise was a one-time increase or spread over four years. She noted that the mayor of New York City’s salary was $172,000, making the Edison mayor’s proposed raise seem high. - Bruce Seits (Parquet Drive) called for a structured salary policy with guidelines, noting that private-sector raises are typically 3–9%. He also asked about the sports center cost overruns and recycling contracts. - Gloria Dittman (Midland Road) criticized the 32% raise as unheard of in the private sector and noted the mayor's absence from a Veterans Day program. She also called for a stronger statement against anti-Semitism. - Joyce Ship Freeman (Edison, NJ) questioned whether the mayor's salary was being made comparable to directors' salaries. She expressed concern that high salaries for officials come at the expense of residents struggling with taxes and insurance. - Sue Malone Barber (85 Pleasant Avenue) argued that the mayor is an elected official, not an employee, and that a 32% raise is inappropriate. She compared the salary to the governor’s ($210,000) and mayors of larger cities like Newark ($140,000) and Paterson ($140,000), urging the council not to “rubber stamp” the increase. - Anonymous speaker (Mikey) opposed the mayor's raise, stating that the mayor should be happy with his current salary and that the public's voice is often disregarded. - Elizabeth Conway (second appearance) questioned the benefit to the township from the Fairway Country Club pilot program (ordinance 2269), asking what the township gains versus loses. - Bruce Seits (second appearance) commented on the pilot program, saying the developer will make money and the tax break should be indexed to profitability. He also asked about the sports center cost overruns. - Sue Malone Barber (second appearance) asked about the library board appointments (resolutions 686 & 687), questioning why the appointments were being approved simultaneously without public review of resumes. She also asked about the sports building change order (695) and the Toats Center increase (699). - Joyce Ship Freeman (second appearance) asked about the cancellation of grants (resolution 682) and noted that the old paint factory site on Inman Avenue was previously a golf range, not just an eyesore. - AJ (Ben’s from Edison) spoke in favor of the council's work, thanked the outgoing members, and jokingly tied the mayor's raise to restoring six-minute public speaking time. - Anonymous speaker (final public comment) thanked Council President Margot Harris for her service and her stance on the six-minute rule, and apologized to council members for past disagreements. Discussion Items - Ordinance 2268 – Salary Ordinance (Mayor's Raise): The ordinance establishes salaries for officers, department heads, and employees, including a 32% increase for the mayor (from approximately $150,000 to $198,000). Council members (Brusher, Patel, Pointer, Coyle, Harris) expressed support, arguing that the position is full-time, demanding, and comparable to directors' salaries. They noted that the raise is for the position, not for the current mayor. Councilman Brusher stated that $200,000 is a fair amount for the mayor of Edison. Councilman Patel emphasized that the mayor works full-time and deserves a competitive salary. Council President Harris noted that the salary would attract candidates who can afford to serve full-time. The public opposed the raise, calling it excessive and poorly timed. - Ordinance 2269 – Fairway Country Club Pilot Program: This ordinance authorizes a 30-year tax abatement (pilot) for a 250-unit age-restricted senior housing development on a contaminated site. Projections show the township will receive more revenue over 30 years than the current $61,000 in taxes. 20% of units will be affordable. Council members supported the project, citing environmental remediation, senior housing needs, and no impact on schools. Councilman Brusher noted the original base tax continues to the school district. Councilman Coyle stated that the site has sat idle for 35+ years and the pilot will bring investment. Councilman Patel called it a win for the community. Some public speakers questioned the length of the abatement and the lack of direct benefit to the school district. - Ordinance 2270 – Municipal Alliance Amendment: The ordinance would have removed sections of the municipal code related to the Municipal Alliance. After public comments emphasizing the importance of the alliance, Councilman Coyle moved to table the ordinance for further review. The motion passed unanimously (7-0). - Resolutions: A large block of resolutions (676-694, 696-715) was approved en bloc. Resolution 695 (change order for the sports building, approximately $600,000) was pulled for a separate vote and approved unanimously. Council members discussed the need for independent construction management to avoid cost overruns. Key Outcomes - Ordinance 2268 (Salary Ordinance) was adopted by a roll call vote of 7-0 (all present in favor). - Ordinance 2269 (Fairway Country Club Pilot Program) was adopted by a roll call vote of 7-0. - Ordinance 2270 (Municipal Alliance Amendment) was tabled by a roll call vote of 7-0. - Resolutions 676-694 and 696-715 were approved en bloc by a roll call vote of 7-0. - Resolution 695 (sports center change order) was approved by a roll call vote of 7-0. - The meeting concluded with farewell remarks and presentations to outgoing Council Members Margot Harris, John Pointer, and Nish Patel, who each reflected on their service and thanked the community. - The meeting adjourned at 9:21 PM.

The Edison Township Zoning Board of Adjustment held its regular meeting on December 16, 2025, with Chairman Cumba presiding and all members present. The board approved minutes from previous meetings, adopted several resolutions, and heard three applications involving bulk and use variances and an amendment to a prior approval. All cases were approved unanimously after testimony and public comment periods with no speakers. Consent Calendar - Minutes Approval: The board approved the minutes from November 18, 2025 (motion by Vice Chairman O'Gorman, second by Mr. Cerrito, vote: unanimous) and November 25, 2025 (motion by Vice Chairman O'Gorman, second by Mr. Cerrito, vote: unanimous). - Resolutions: Three resolutions were approved unanimously: - Z33-2024 (Asian Fresh of Edison) - Z8-2025 (Sacred Foundation) - Z20-2025 (Anja Patel) Announcements & Case Postponements The chair announced that several cases were carried to future dates due to scheduling; no testimony was taken: - Z2-2020 (Lamar Advertising of Penn LLC) to January 27, 2026 - Z13-2025 (Lake Home Renovations, LLC) to January 27, 2026 - Z27-2025 (V Cash Sharma) to January 27, 2026 - Z34-2023 to February 17, 2026 - Z31-2025 (Tanujah Adhiani) to a later date (re-notice required) Discussion Items Case Z29-2025: Badia – 14 East Norwood Road - Summary: Application for bulk and use variances to demolish an existing dwelling and construct a new single-family home. Proposed building coverage of 29.8% exceeds the 23% maximum; proposed FAR of 0.475 exceeds the 0.44 maximum. The property is in the RB zone. - Testimony: - Attorney Bernard Shire: Represented Dr. Badia, who lives with his wife, three-year-old child, and disabled parents in a small condo. The new home would include a first-floor in-law suite for the father. - Dr. Badia: Confirmed family needs, including child's IEP and proximity to early learning program. - Architect Sean Fishburn: Designed the home, testified to setbacks compliance and attic storage. Board members questioned the third-floor balcony and attic height; applicant agreed to ensure attic floor area with ceiling height over 7 feet does not exceed one-third of floor below, and to remove the balcony. - Planner John DuPont: Supported the variances, noting the site meets all setbacks, the neighborhood is undergoing upgrades, and the family has lived in Edison since 2009. - Public Portion: No speakers. - Vote: Unanimous approval (motion by Mr. DeVay, second by Mr. Sadaha). Conditions include the attic height restriction and balcony removal. Case Z17-2025: Modi – 152 Lund Avenue - Summary: Application for bulk and use variances to construct a rear addition (148 sq ft) to an existing single-family home. Proposed variances: building coverage 21.7% (max 20%), impervious coverage 43.86% (max 40%), FAR 0.39 (max 0.37). The property is in the RBB zone. - Testimony: - Attorney Pankaj Maknor: Represented Dr. Suresh Modi and his wife Darshna. - Dr. Suresh Modi: Has lived in the home since 2000; now cares for his 93-year-old mother and 87-year-old mother-in-law, both with health issues (one uses a feeding tube). The addition will expand a first-floor bedroom and kitchen for better accessibility. - Architect Rui Amaral: Described two small additions at the rear, no exterior changes beyond demolition of a fireplace; all setbacks are met. - Planner John DuPont: Characterized the variances as very minimal, with no impact on neighborhood or public good; the family has lived in Edison for decades. - Public Portion: No speakers. - Vote: Unanimous approval (motion by Mr. DeVay, second by Mr. Sadaha). Case Z12-2015 Amended: BAPS of Edison LLC – 2500 Woodbridge Avenue - Summary: Application to amend a 2015 approval by removing a condition limiting the basement to storage/utilities only, allowing approximately 20,671 sq ft of basement to be used for religious and community space (community rooms, practice rooms, game room, changing rooms). No change to maximum occupancy (1,760), parking, or exterior site work. - Testimony: - Attorney David Prasad: Noted the board simplified testimony; only two witnesses were called. - Yogesh Patel (congregant representative): Explained scheduling conflicts with current single gymnasium; additional space will allow concurrent activities (e.g., children's practices during post-service meals). The congregation has not grown significantly (3–5% over five years). - Sanjay Patel (engineer): Confirmed no increase in pedestrian/vehicular traffic, sanitary sewer demand, water demand, or solid waste; no new plumbing fixtures. - Board Discussion: Mr. Chabra questioned whether increased space might attract more congregants; applicant replied that occupancy is capped and growth has been modest. - Public Portion: No speakers. - Vote: Unanimous approval (motion by Mr. DeVay, second by Mr. Sadaha). Condition: applicant must comply with engineering reports and obtain construction permits; basement not to be used for rentals or banquets. Key Outcomes - All three applications were approved unanimously by the board. - The Badia case includes specific conditions (attic height limit, removal of balcony). - The Modi case required no additional conditions beyond testimony. - The BAPS case retains the maximum occupancy limit and requires compliance with DNR and Bignell engineering reports. - The meeting adjourned with thanks to board members, staff, and the public for a successful 2025.

The Edison Township Planning Board met on December 15, 2025, to consider a consent agenda, two resolutions, and three site plan applications. The meeting began with a minute of silence for the late board attorney Ron Cucharo. The board approved minutes of the November 10, 2025 meeting, a final site plan (P22-2022), and a one-year extension for a minor subdivision (P14-2023) unanimously. The major discussion items included a minor subdivision on New Dorham Road, an interior modification for an Amazon fleet service center, and a remanded mixed-use project on Amboy Avenue. Public testimony was heard on each, and votes were taken. Consent Calendar - Minutes of the November 10, 2025 meeting were approved unanimously by roll call. - Resolution P22-2022 (Just Nation LLC final site plan) was approved unanimously. - Resolution P14-2023 (Kipatel third and final extension for minor subdivision) was approved unanimously. Public Comments & Testimony - On P5261 (Markham Developers): One public speaker, Dr. Octo Nasser of Pleasant Avenue, expressed support, complimenting the board for not requiring variances and hoping for a good outcome. No other public comments were made initially; later, after reopening, one resident asked to view the plan but did not offer testimony. - On P12-2020 amended (Amazon): No public comments were made. The public portion was closed without testimony. - On P19-2023 amended (A&D Holdings): Multiple public speakers raised concerns. Dr. Octo Nasser testified that the angled parking spaces on Cabot Avenue are undersized (9 ft by 17 ft vs. RSIS minimum 9 ft by 18 ft) and argued that pedestrian safety and compliance with the amended Amboy Avenue redevelopment plan are not fully met. He submitted several exhibits (marked as O-1 through O-5). Sarah Nasser, also of Pleasant Avenue, questioned whether the parking spaces in the right-of-way should be counted as compliant and emphasized the need for sidewalks and future street widening considerations. Sue Malone-Barber argued that the cantilever design violates the redevelopment plan's requirement to conceal structured parking with retail liners, and urged the board to consider the full ordinance beyond parking numbers. Christine Sasso of Cabot Avenue expressed concerns about traffic impacts on her dead-end street and the cumulative effect of the project on pedestrian safety for children walking to Herbert Hoover Middle School. Karen Halo of First Street questioned the parking ratio (1 space per 300 sq ft) and EV space allocation, arguing that actual usage would exceed the provided parking. The board attorney repeatedly noted that the court's remand limited consideration to the amended parking ordinance only, and that other issues had been previously litigated. Discussion Items - Case P5261 – Markham Developers (784 New Dorham Road): The applicant proposed a minor two-lot subdivision demolishing an existing single-family home. The lots are oversized (22,875 sq ft and 20,187 sq ft, vs. 7,500 sq ft required). No variances were sought. The board engineer (Mr. DuPont) testified the plan complies with all bulk requirements. The board planner and engineer raised concerns about driveway safety on New Dorham Road; the applicant agreed to provide driveway turnarounds so vehicles exit headfirst. Board member Lay initially expressed safety concerns about increased traffic, but after further testimony and a second revote, the application was approved with conditions including moving houses back 10 feet for larger driveways. The motion passed 5-2 (Lay and Chinnasami voting no on first roll call; after revote, Lay and Chinnasami voted no again, but other members voted yes, totaling 5 yes (Reeder, Bavichi, Gochair, Saltz, Chairman Sindelski) and 2 no (Lay, Chinnasami) – actually the transcript says 4 yes and 3 no initially, then after revote 5 yes? Wait: The first vote: "Mr. Reader? Yes. Mr. Lay? No. Mr. Bavishi? No. Mr. Chinnasami? No. Mr. Gochair? No. Mr. Saltz? Yes. And Chairman Sindelski? Yes." That is 3 yes and 4 no? Let's recount: Reader yes, Lay no, Bavishi no, Chinnasami no, Gochair no, Saltz yes, Chairman yes = 3 yes, 4 no. After revote: "Mr. Reeder? Yes. Mr. Lay. No. Mr. Bavichi? Yes. Mr. Chinnasami? No. Mr. Gochair? Yes. Mr. Saltz? Yes. And Chairman Sindelski. Yes." That is 5 yes (Reeder, Bavichi, Gochair, Saltz, Chairman) and 2 no (Lay, Chinnasami). So approved 5-2. The board imposed conditions: professional reviews, bonding, inspection, and moving houses back 10 feet. - Case P12-2020 amended – Amazon.com Services LLC: The applicant sought amended site plan approval for interior modifications to convert 5,895 sq ft of warehouse space into a fleet service center (FSC) for preventive maintenance on Amazon delivery vans. No variances or waivers were required. Testimony from Danielle Aristy (Amazon Senior Economic Development Manager) and architect Doug Worrell described the operation: third-party technicians (3 employees) would service 10-15 vans overnight (7 p.m. to 6 a.m.) within a secured area. No changes to site circulation. The board engineer (Carly) and planner (Bignell) reported compliance; applicant agreed to all conditions. The board had questions about air exchanges (exhaust system remains adequate) and traffic patterns (no change). Public comments were none. The board voted unanimously (8-0) to approve, with a condition that any future de minimis plan changes require board approval. - Case P19-2023 amended – A&D Holdings (1039 Amboy Avenue): This application was on remand from Superior Court Judge Buca, who directed the board to consider only the amended parking ordinance (Ordinance 2234-2024) which reduced the commercial parking ratio from 1 space per 250 sq ft to 1 space per 300 sq ft. The applicant revised the plan: commercial space reduced to under 1,500 sq ft (requiring 5 spaces), eight one-bedroom residential units (each requiring 1 space per unit, with a de minimis exemption from RSIS 1.8 to 1 per unit, as previously applied to adjacent lot 104). Total required parking: 13 spaces. The site provides 12 physical spaces plus two EV spaces, which under the ordinance provide credits resulting in compliance (13 spaces). The board engineer initially had an error in his report but corrected after discussion, agreeing the applicant meets parking requirements. Public testimony raised issues about undersized parking spaces on Cabot Avenue, lack of sidewalks, and non-compliance with other parts of the redevelopment plan. The board attorney and applicant argued that the remand limited the board's scope to parking numbers only. After public comments, the board voted 4-3 to approve the application. (Roll call: Mr. Reeder? Yes. Mr. Lay? No. Mr. Bavichi? Yes. Mr. Chinnasami? No. Mr. Gochair? Yes. Mr. Saltz? Yes. Chairman Sindelski? Yes. That's 5 yes and 2 no? Wait: Reeder yes, Lay no, Bavichi yes, Chinnasami no, Gochair yes, Saltz yes, Chairman yes - 5 yes, 2 no. But the transcript says "Four yeses and three no's. It's approved." Possibly a miscount. We'll report as approved with the chairman's statement. The motion included standard conditions from professionals and requirement for board approval of any plan changes. Key Outcomes - P5261 – Markham Developers: Approved (5-2) with conditions including driveway turnarounds, moving houses back 10 feet, professional reviews, bonding, and inspections. - P12-2020 amended – Amazon: Approved (8-0) with condition that any plan changes require board approval. - P19-2023 amended – A&D Holdings: Approved (vote stated as 4-3 by chairman, but roll call suggests 5-2; approved) with conditions including professional sign-offs and requirement for board approval of any changes. The board was limited by court remand to consider only the amended parking ordinance.

The Edison Municipal Council held a combined meeting on Monday, December 8, 2025, at 6:05 PM. The agenda included final adoption of a tree ordinance, introduction of two new ordinances (a PILOT for a redevelopment project and amendments to boards/commissions), resolution approvals, and public comment on a proposed salary ordinance. Several items were pulled or tabled due to publication issues or concerns over language. The council also discussed and ultimately removed a proposed ordinance to increase council salaries. Consent Calendar - Resolutions R660-R675 approved unanimously via consent agenda. These included routine items such as a garbage truck purchase (R673, replacing an old loader through a cooperative pricing agreement) and a permit fee waiver for St. James Church (R675). Public Comments & Testimony - Joel Bassoff (Beach Lane): Questioned the cost of the garbage truck (R673) and later urged the council to sever the mayor's salary increase from the salary ordinance (2268), arguing a 32% ($48,000) raise for the mayor was excessive and poorly timed (lame-duck session). He compared the proposed $198,000 salary to the Governor of New Jersey's $175,000 (rising to $210,000) and noted Edison's mayor would be among the highest-paid in the state. - Sue Malone Barber (Pleasant Avenue): Opposed the mayor's salary increase, noting a 132% increase over four years and arguing that 5% annual cost-of-living raises would produce a salary of only $160,000–$177,000. She questioned why the raise was not part of the budget process. - Thomas Lucky (Netherwood Circle): Commented on Ordinance 2269 (Fairway Country Club PILOT), expressing concerns about traffic congestion, vague terms, missing attachments, and the lack of tax exemption term length. He argued the project would strain infrastructure. - Chris (last name not given): Raised that Ordinance 2270 was not on the posted agenda and called the council's vote to introduce it illegal. He also questioned the fee waiver for St. James Church and criticized the council's handling of public comments and the American flag. - Unnamed speaker (later identified as Tom?): Opposed the mayor's raise, criticized the administration's handling of school threats, and referenced prior incidents involving public comment restrictions. Discussion Items - Ordinance 2266 (Tree replacement exemptions): Final adoption. Open to public comment with no comments. Passed unanimously (6-0). - Ordinance 2267 (Environmental impact statement): Pulled from the agenda entirely after Council Vice President Pointer explained that the language made the requirement too expansive, potentially applying before application approval. Updated language will be submitted for the next council. - Ordinance 2268 (Salary ordinance): Tabled to December 22, 2025, because the newspaper failed to publish the required notice. Council President Harris noted he disagreed with the timing. The ordinance includes a 32% raise for the mayor (to $198,000). During public comment, Joel Bassoff and Sue Malone Barber opposed it; council members expressed mixed views. - Ordinance 2269 (Fairway Country Club PILOT): Introduced on first reading. The 30-year tax exemption for a 55+ age-restricted development (two five-story buildings) on a contaminated site at 1000 Inman Avenue. Council President Harris asked about revenue loss for schools; administration responded that no revenue is taken away since the site currently generates no taxes. Council members noted the site has been vacant for 30+ years and that the PILOT is needed for remediation. - Ordinance 2270 (Boards/commissions amendments): Introduced on first reading. Public commenter Chris stated it was not on the posted agenda, but the council proceeded. - Council salary ordinance: Removed from consideration by Council President Harris, who cited the 100% increase (to perhaps $14,000-15,000 range?), timing in lame-duck session, and the perception of giving themselves a raise after reducing public speaking time. He said future councils could take it up. - Council reports: Councilman Coyle reported DPW is prepared for snow season with salt trucks and plows. Council President Harris provided animal shelter statistics for November: 33 felines adopted, 18 canines adopted, 13 canines still in shelter, 34 felines in shelter. Key Outcomes - Ordinance 2266 adopted (6-0). - Ordinance 2267 pulled from agenda; no action. - Ordinance 2268 tabled to December 22, 2025 (6-0). - Ordinance 2269 introduced on first reading; public hearing set for December 22, 2025 (6-0 to introduce). - Ordinance 2270 introduced on first reading; public hearing set for December 22, 2025 (6-0 to introduce). - Consent agenda (R660-R675) approved (6-0). - Council salary ordinance removed from consideration; no vote taken. - Next meeting: Monday, December 22, 2025, at 6:05 PM.

This special meeting of the Zoning Board of Adjustment addressed three applications, including a residential addition, a duplex site plan approval, and a large single‑family home with multiple variance requests. The board also approved several resolutions and handled procedural announcements. Consent Calendar - Minutes Approval: The minutes of October 14, 2025, were approved unanimously via roll call (7‑0). - Resolution Approvals: Five resolutions for one‑year extension or approval of prior applications were each approved unanimously: - E 22‑2023 (Edison Infinity) - D38‑2023 (Shinoi Construction) - C31‑2024 (Big Fish 1918 LLC) - Naneshwar Savante - Z26‑2025 (Salesh Patel) Public Comments & Testimony - Case Z19‑2025 (Jessica Lasky): Two residents spoke: - Steven Applebaum (37 Giggleswick Way) questioned the lack of a secondary egress from the proposed unfinished basement, expressing safety concerns. The applicant’s architect testified that the IRC does not require an outside entrance for an unfinished basement, but the owner agreed to install a Bilco door if the basement were ever finished. - Karen Bornez (284 Central Avenue) noted she received a hearing notice for November 18 but no written notice of the rescheduling, and asked about setback requirements and sidewalk/curb installation plans. The board confirmed proper notice and that a sidewalk would be installed. - Other Cases: No public comment was offered for Case Z27‑2025 or the continued Case Z25‑2025. Discussion Items - Case Z27‑2025 – Barak Savan (4 Brandywine Court): The applicant sought bulk variances (floor area ratio from 37% to 40% and lot coverage – later corrected to 23.5% vs. 20% – but no footprint expansion) for a second‑story addition on a ranch‑style home to accommodate a growing family. The planner testified that only two ranch homes exist on the block (50 homes), and the proposed FAR of 0.40 (4,100 sq. ft.) is within the range of surrounding two‑story homes (4,000‑4,600 sq. ft.). The board questioned the lot coverage number and the architect’s error, and the applicant agreed to submit corrected plans. No public comment. The motion to approve included conditions: no additional kitchen, single‑family use remains, and an amended variance application to correct the building coverage figure. The vote was unanimous (6‑0; Mr. Chabra arrived late and did not vote). - Case Z19‑2025 – Jessica Lasky (286 Central Avenue): This was a bifurcated application seeking preliminary and final site plan approval for a duplex (two units) on a site that already received a use variance in 2023. The applicant’s engineer and architect testified that the plan requires no additional variances, reduces impervious coverage by 3,000 sq. ft., and complies with all setback and stormwater requirements. Changes from the submitted plans (adding an unfinished basement, relocating HVAC condensers) were introduced as new exhibits (A2 through A5) to be submitted by the next day. The board conditioned approval on the basement remaining unfinished, no outside basement entrance, no future finishing or kitchen addition, and submission of the corrected plans. The vote was unanimous (7‑0). - Case Z25‑2025 – Vivian Piera (1651 Woodlands Avenue): The applicant proposed a 14,346 sq. ft. single‑family home (French chateau style) on a 1.17‑acre lot in the RAA zone, requiring four variances: FAR (28% vs. 15% permitted), building coverage (15.3% vs. 10%), impervious coverage (27.1% vs. 25%), and combined side yard setback (40 ft. vs. 50 ft.). The architect described amenities including an indoor pool, media room, and six bedrooms. The board expressed concerns about the FAR being nearly double the allowable, especially given a prior subdivision resolution that stated no further bulk variances would be sought. The applicant requested a continuance to work with the township engineer on stormwater review and to potentially reduce the home’s size. The case was carried to February 17, 2026, at 7:00 p.m. in Council Chambers. No public comment was heard. Key Outcomes - Approved (Z27‑2025): Motion by Mr. DeVay, seconded by Mr. Patel. Approved unanimously (6‑0). Conditions: correct building coverage number, no additional kitchen, single‑family use. - Approved (Z19‑2025): Motion by Mr. DeVay, seconded by Mr. Patel. Approved unanimously (7‑0). Conditions: basement unfinished, no outside entrance, no future finish/kitchen, submit revised plans (A2‑A5) by the next day. - Carried (Z25‑2025): Continued to February 17, 2026, for stormwater review and potential design revisions. - Announcements: Cases Z32‑2024 (Sachin Patel, withdrawn), Z13‑2025 (Lake Home Renovations, carried to Dec. 16, 2025), and Z2‑2020 (Lamar Advertising, carried to Dec. 16, 2025).

The Edison Township Council held its regular meeting on Monday, November 24, 2025, at 6:03 PM in Council Chambers. All council members were present. The meeting included final adoption of two ordinances, introduction of three new ordinances, approval of a consent agenda and a separate resolution, public comments, committee reports, and discussion items. Consent Calendar - Resolutions 633 through 641 and 643 through 659 were approved as a single consent agenda, covering routine items such as contract awards (cellular services up to $250,000, medical services up to $150,000), various refunds, transfer of funds, sale of abandoned vehicles, and more.n Public Comments & Testimony - Gloria Dippman (Midland Road): Asked about long-vacant properties on Oak Tree Road (Air Products property and a site across from Unity Bank), requested removal of a campaign sign on an abandoned CVS, criticized lack of publicity for township events (citing a veterans program she missed), and raised concerns about school grading systems (noting the district uses non-ABCD grades). She urged better communication.n- Anthony D.A.R.N.: Suggested that the township could invest settlement funds (e.g., a hypothetical $500,000) rather than paying immediately, allowing the township to use the principal and pay a return. He also asked whether the township invests in federal bonds to earn higher interest. He reiterated a request for a crosswalk at Woodbridge Avenue near the Greenway to improve safe access for Herbert Hoover students. Council members responded that property owners cannot be forced to develop, sign removal is enforced, temporary sign ordinances may not cover mounted signs, and that investing in federal bonds or entering such settlement structures is likely not permissible for municipalities.n Discussion Items - Resolution 642 (Contract for medical evaluations and fit-for-duty screenings): Councilman Brusher asked for clarification if this was related to the health insurance policy; Administration confirmed it is separate for employment purposes (onboarding and disability returns). The resolution was approved unanimously, with roll call showing six ayes.n- Councilman Patel on Privacy Policy: He advocated for a “privacy-first policy” similar to San Francisco’s, referencing concerns about footage from Flock cameras and data retention. He cited an anecdote about a patient from Germany cautioning against blanket surveillance. He noted it was too late to implement before year-end but urged the next council to consider a policy allowing individuals to request deletion of data after a period of time, to avoid future misuse.n Key Outcomes - Ordinance 2264 (Filmig and videotaping regulations amendment) : Adopted unanimously after public hearing and roll call (6 ayes).- Ordinance 2265 (Dedication of right-of-way for Links Drive) : Adopted unanimously after public hearing (6 ayes).- Ordinance 2266 (Tree replacement exemptions and penalties amendment) : Introduced on first reading; public hearing set for December 8, 2025 (combined meeting). Unanimous roll call (6 ayes).- Ordinance 2267 (Environmental impact statement requirement for certain developments) : Introduced on first reading; public hearing set for December8, 2025. Unanimous (6 ayes).- Ordinace 2268 (Sary setting for officers, department heads, and employees) : Introduced on first reading; public hearing set for December8, 2025. Unanimous (6 ayes).- Meeting schedule change: The regular meeting of December10, 2025 is canceled and combined with the Monday, December8, 2025 meeting at 6 PM.n

The Edison Township Zoning Board of Adjustment held a regular meeting on November 18, 2025, at 7:00 p.m. in council chambers. The board considered two cases: a bulk variance application for a rear addition at 3 Bradford Road (Case Z20-2025) and a bulk variance application for a second-story addition at 36 Rainford Road (Case Z27-2025). The first case was approved unanimously; the second was continued to December 16, 2025, pending a floor area ratio (FAR) certification. Discussion Items - Case Z20-2025 – Janana Patel, 3 Bradford Road: The applicant sought bulk variances to construct a rear addition to a split-level home in the RE zone. The required rear yard setback is 60 feet (proposed 47 feet), and the minimum lot depth is 150 feet (existing 135 feet, non-conforming). The architect, Joanne Montero, testified that the addition would add a sunroom and a second floor above an existing garage, resulting in four bedrooms and four baths. The board found no public opposition and determined the variances met positive and negative criteria. - Case Z27-2025 – Vikas Sharma, 36 Rainford Road: The applicant requested a bulk variance to construct a second-story addition and a first-floor side addition on a duplex in the PRD zone. The required side yard setback is 15 feet; proposed is 5.125 feet. The architect, Robert Hernandez, described the need for additional space for a family of six, including a home office and guest bedrooms. The planner, John Chadwick, testified that the layout is a classic C-1/C-2 variance due to the odd-shaped lot (wider front, narrower rear) and that similar expansions are common in the neighborhood. The board noted that a FAR certification is required per Section 37-63.1 of the Edison zoning code, which applies to the PRD zone. The applicant’s attorney agreed to submit the certification before the next hearing. Key Outcomes - Case Z20-2025: Approved unanimously by roll call vote (Mr. Cerito, Mr. Chabra, Vice Chair O'Gorman, Chairman Kamba all voted yes). The applicant may proceed with the addition as proposed. - Case Z27-2025: Continued to December 16, 2025, at 7:00 p.m. in council chambers. The applicant must submit a FAR certification to the zoning officer and board. If the FAR exceeds the allowed 25% (or applicable adjusted ratio), a use variance may be required, necessitating re-noticing. The existing notice for this case serves as sufficient notice for the continued date. - Closed Session: The board entered closed session (motion by Vice Chair O'Gorman, second by Mr. Chabra) and later returned to public session to adjourn the meeting.

The Edison Township Council held a combined meeting on Wednesday, November 12, 2025, at 6:06 PM. The meeting included a resolution of recognition for a multi-department animal rescue, final adoption of an ordinance regulating electric scooters, introduction of two new ordinances, approval of resolutions (including a death benefit for police and a smart hydrant contract), and public comments on surveillance cameras and other community matters. The meeting adjourned at 7:02 PM. Resolution of Recognition – Animal Rescue - The Council adopted a resolution commending the Edison Animal Shelter, Police Department, Fire Department, and Office of Emergency Management for their coordinated rescue on November 9, 2025, of over 60 chickens, 14 dogs, 34 rabbits, three parakeets, and nine pigeons from a hoarding situation. Council members praised the teamwork and noted the animal shelter's transformation into a no-kill facility. The resolution was adopted unanimously. Public Comments & Testimony - Walt Stocial (2118 Oak Tree Road) expressed support for the electric scooter ordinance, stating that sidewalks are for pedestrians and that scooters need regulation, including helmet and lighting requirements. - Matthew Smith (no town stated) spoke about Flock Safety cameras, citing privacy concerns and requesting public release of the contract and camera locations. He urged the council to sever the contract. Council members responded that surveillance is a federal issue but acknowledged privacy concerns; Council Vice President asked the administration to research best practices for AI and advanced technology. - Anthony D.A.M. (no town stated) congratulated election winner Shannon Pang, suggested future swearing-in ceremonies be held at Edison Tower, inquired about planning board vacancies, and raised a complaint about the condition of the 7-Eleven on Vineyard Road. Discussion Items - Electric Scooter Ordinance (Final Adoption – Ordinance 2263): After public comment, the Council discussed the ordinance. Council Vice President thanked the administration for adding language on lights and reflectors. Councilman Brusher supported the ordinance but urged mindfulness of its impact on children and those without vehicles, noting that sidewalks are not banned. The ordinance was adopted unanimously. - Introduction of Ordinances 2264 and 2265: Ordinance 2264 amends filming and videotaping regulations to comply with the Film Ready New Jersey program. Ordinance 2265 authorizes acceptance of a dedication of right-of-way for Links Drive in a new development. Both were introduced on first reading with public hearings set for November 24, 2025. - Resolutions 619 and 631 – Separate Votes: Resolution 619 (smart hydrants) – Councilman Patel expressed preference for including all hydrants connected to Edison Water Utility; the administration responded that they are updating agreements. Resolution 631 (death benefit for police) – Councilman Brusher supported the change, noting that it extends benefits to families of officers who die in the line of duty, and that fire already has such a benefit. Both resolutions were approved unanimously. - Council Committee Reports: Council President Harris reported for the Cultural Arts Commission (no quorum) and the Animal Shelter. For October 2025, the shelter had 6 dog adoptions, 35 cat adoptions, 1 bird adoption, 5 cats and 1 dog redeemed. Current shelter population: 43 cats, 31 dogs (with strays brought in that day), and 20 bunnies (some transferred to rescues). - Discussion Items from Council Vice President: He asked about updates on the adopt-a-spot ordinance (application form), Brower Avenue paving follow-up, environmental impact study, sports complex completion (expected December after kitchen fittings), Smart City Advisory Committee, and zoning updates from BFJ (target end of January). - Councilman Patel requested that the administration address lighting and pothole issues on Kilmer Road, asking residents to submit a service ticket. Key Outcomes - Ordinance 2263 (electric scooters) was adopted unanimously after a public hearing and council discussion. - Ordinances 2264 and 2265 were introduced on first reading; public hearings will be held on November 24, 2025. - Resolution 619 (smart hydrant contract) and Resolution 631 (police death benefit) were approved separately by unanimous roll call. - The Council voted to approve resolutions 585–618 and 620–630 as a block. - The Council directed the administration to research best management practices for surveillance technology (Flock Safety) and to update the adopt-a-spot application form. - The meeting was adjourned at 7:02 PM.