Edison Township Zoning Board of Adjustment Regular Meeting - September 16, 2025

The Edison Township Zoning Board of Adjustment held its regular meeting on September 16, 2025, at 7:00 PM in council chambers. The board addressed four cases, including variances for residential additions and a final site plan approval for a mixed-use building. All board members were present. The meeting was conducted in accordance with the Open Public Meetings Act.

Consent Calendar

• Minutes of August 26, 2025: Approved unanimously. Motion by Mr. Sidata, second by Mr. Schneider. Roll call: All members voted yes.

Discussion Items

Case Z8-2024 – Ultimate Collision (1115 Route 1)

• This case was not heard and was carried to November 18, 2025, with no re-notice required. The chair announced that those present would not receive another notice.

Case Z13-2025 – Lake Home Renovations, LLC (17 Gene Place)

• Applicant: Frank DeSario, representing Lake Home Renovations. Sought bulk variances for a new single-family dwelling: front yard setback (required 25 ft, proposed 20.9 ft) and side yard setback (required 10 ft, proposed 9.6 ft).
• Testimony: Attorney Larry Lavender argued that the deviations were de minimis and resulted from a good-faith error in measurement. Mr. DeSario testified that he measured from the grass line rather than the town-owned easement, and did not use a professional surveyor. He admitted the house was fully constructed by October 2024, but the town issued a stop-work order in May 2025 after discovering the setback errors.
• Board Questions: Members expressed concern that no surveyor was used and that the foundation location was never submitted to the construction office. Mr. DeSario stated he did not know about the easement requirement.
• Outcome: Attorney Lavender requested an adjournment to bring expert testimony and photographs. The board granted a continuance to October 21, 2025.

Case Z26-2025 – Hermit Boundary (43 Silver Lake Avenue)

• Applicant: Hemant Banderi, an Edison DPW employee, seeking to add a second story to his single-family home. Required variances: FAR (44% max, proposed 54%) and impervious lot coverage (40% max, proposed 50%). Pre-existing nonconformities exist due to lot size (5,000 sq ft vs. required 7,500 sq ft).
• Testimony: Attorney Thomas Barlow presented the applicant, who testified that the addition is needed to accommodate his family (wife, two daughters, and parents). Planner/engineer John DuPont testified that 32 of 37 lots within 200 ft are nonconforming in lot size, and 26 are over on impervious coverage. He argued the variances meet C2 criteria and a C1 hardship exists due to zoning changes.
• Board Negotiation: Board members suggested reducing the FAR and impervious coverage. After a recess, the applicant agreed to: reduce second floor from 1,221 sq ft to 1,011 sq ft (FAR to 49.94%), remove a concrete patio (4.18% reduction), and shorten the driveway (2.34% reduction), bringing impervious coverage to approximately 46%.
• Public Portion: Closed with no speakers.
• Vote: Motion to approve with conditions (FAR ≤ 49.94%, impervious coverage ≤ 46%). Unanimous (7-0).

Case Z27-2025 – Aharat San Karan (4 Brandywine Court)

• Applicant: Bharat Sankaran, seeking variances for FAR (37% max, proposed 41%) and building coverage (20% max, existing 26% – a pre-existing nonconformity). The proposal is to add a second story to a ranch house, leaving the first floor unchanged.
• Testimony: Attorney Kamlika Gill and the applicant testified about family needs. Architect Robert Wanhouse described the design but was not a planner. Board members noted that planning testimony was required for the variances.
• Outcome: The board continued the case to October 21, 2025, to allow the applicant to retain a professional planner.

Case Z35-2023 – Juana Lopez (2037 Woodbridge Avenue)

• Applicant: Juan Lopez, seeking final site plan approval for a previously approved preliminary site plan (granted December 17, 2024) for a two-story mixed-use building with a first-floor beauty salon and a second-floor two-bedroom apartment.
• Testimony: Attorney Bernard Shire stated that all conditions from preliminary approval would be met. Board professionals (Bignell and Carly) noted outstanding issues: documentation of pipeline buffer ordinance compliance and showing an air conditioning unit on the roof. The applicant agreed to address these in revised plans.
• Public Portion: Closed with no speakers.
• Vote: Motion to approve final site plan approval subject to all preliminary conditions being satisfied. Unanimous (7-0).

Key Outcomes

• Case Z13-2025: Continued to October 21, 2025, for expert testimony.
• Case Z26-2025: Approved with reduced FAR (49.94%) and impervious coverage (46%), all conditions met.
• Case Z27-2025: Continued to October 21, 2025, for planning testimony.
• Case Z35-2023: Final site plan approval granted, subject to compliance with pipeline buffer ordinance and architectural detail conditions.
• All votes were unanimous where taken.