Edison Planning Board Meeting - December 15, 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.