Edison Zoning Board of Adjustment Special Meeting – January 27, 2026

The Township of Edison Zoning Board of Adjustment held a special meeting on January 27, 2026, at 7:00 p.m. in Council Chambers. The board elected officers for the year, announced two cases carried to future dates, and heard two applications for bulk variances. Both applications were denied by unanimous votes.

Board Reorganization and Appointments

• Michael Kamba was unanimously elected Chairperson for the upcoming year.
• Dan O'Gorman was unanimously elected Vice Chair.
• Rachel Ruguerio was unanimously named Secretary to the Zoning Board of Adjustment.
• Lindsay Knight of Neglia Planning was unanimously appointed as professional planner to the board.
• Delaware Raritan Engineering (represented by Mr. Carly) was unanimously appointed as professional engineer to the board.
• Mark Rogoff appeared as attorney for the zoning board, pending formal appointment.

Announcements – Cases Carried

• Case Z2-2020 (Lamar Advertising a Penn, LLC) at 81 and 101 U.S. Highway 1 was carried to March 31, 2026, with no renotice required.
• Case Z27-2025 (Vikosh Sharma) at 36 Rainford Road was carried to February 17, 2026, with no renotice required.

Case Z13-2025: Lake Home Renovations LLC at 17 Gene Place

Applicant's Request: Seek bulk variances (C2) to legalize an existing single-family dwelling constructed with a front yard setback of 20.9 feet (required 25 feet) and a side yard setback of 9.6 feet (required 10 feet). The applicant attributed the errors to a layout mistake: the foundation was measured from the edge of pavement rather than the property line.

Testimony (John DePont, PE/PP):

• The dwelling is nearly complete; variances are requested to legalize the as-built condition.
• The front yard deviation is 4.1 feet; side yard deviation is 4 inches.
• No impact on drainage, site lines, or stormwater; impervious coverage was slightly reduced.
• The applicant agreed to comply with all conditions in the township engineer's report.
• Aerial exhibit (A3) showed other homes on the block with front yard setbacks less than 25 feet, but measurements were estimated from Google imagery, not surveyed.
• DePont testified the house blends into the neighborhood visually and does not impair the zone plan.

Public Comments:

• Joan Rosen (9 Gene Place): Expressed concerns about the process—the house was nearly complete before neighbors were notified; worried that approving a builder's mistake would set a bad precedent for future construction.
• Mike Rose (9 Gene Place): Stated he did not want an approval to set a precedent for other builders to follow; questioned why professionals were not involved earlier to prevent the error.

Board Discussion & Motion:

• Vice Chairman O'Gorman moved to deny, stating the application had not met positive and negative criteria, the mistake was self-imposed (no survey used to lay the foundation), and the variances did not match neighborhood character.
• The motion was seconded and passed unanimously (8-0).

Key Outcome: Application denied.

Case Z34-2025: Bargive Choksky at 22 Augusta Avenue

Applicant's Request: Seek bulk variances to construct a first-floor master bedroom addition to accommodate the applicant’s elderly parents who cannot use stairs. Variances needed: front yard setback – proposed 13.78 feet (required 25 feet); lot depth – existing 90 feet (required 100 feet, an existing nonconformity).

Testimony (Mr. Fletcher, PE/PP):

• The addition would be placed on the side (Lynch Avenue side) to preserve usable rear yard space.
• Exhibit A1 (tax map) showed five nearby properties with front yard setbacks less than 25 feet, including one directly across the street at 8.5 feet.
• The applicant stated no construction has begun.
• Fletcher argued the variance meets C1 criteria due to the unique shape of the lot and that the addition would not adversely impact the zone plan or neighborhood.

Notice Deficiency Issue:

• Board counsel noted the public notice was potentially defective: it referred to vague code sections without specifying the variances (front yard setback, side yard, etc.), making it unclear to the public what relief was sought. Counsel warned this could be jurisdictional.
• After consultation, the applicant chose to proceed despite the notice issue, understanding that the board would decide on the merits.

Public Comments: None.

Board Discussion & Motion:

• Vice Chairman O'Gorman moved to deny, stating the positive and negative criteria were not met, the comparative exhibit (A1) was insufficient and unclear, lot sizes differed, and the presentation lacked clarity.
• The motion was seconded and passed unanimously (8-0).

Key Outcome: Application denied.

Key Outcomes

• Z13-2025 (17 Gene Place): Denied (8-0).
• Z34-2025 (22 Augusta Avenue): Denied (8-0).
• Both denials were moved by Vice Chairman O'Gorman and seconded by Mr. Sidoto, with unanimous roll call votes.