Edison Zoning Board Denies Billboard Variance on Remand – June 23, 2026

On June 23, 2026, the Edison Township Zoning Board of Adjustment held a regular meeting primarily focused on a remand hearing for case Z 53-2019, American Outdoor Advertising, concerning a proposed two-sided digital billboard at 737 New Durham Road. The meeting began at 7:00 PM in the council chambers. The board voted unanimously to deny the application after considering testimony and public comments limited to the negative criteria as directed by the Appellate Division.

Consent Calendar

• Minutes Approval: The board approved the minutes of May 19, 2026 (motion by Mr. Chabra, second by Mr. Johnny, unanimous).
• Resolutions Adopted: The board adopted four resolutions for prior approvals: Z 25-2025 (Vivian Pierra), Z 33-2025 (NHDP LLC), Z 7-2026 (Michelle Campbell), and Z 8-2026 (Harish Gauda). Each was approved unanimously.

Announcements & Administrative Items

• Case KZ3-2026 (Suresh Mandanka, 97 Garden Terrace) was withdrawn by the applicant. The applicant (owner) appeared to request reinstatement due to a miscommunication with his attorney; the board explained he could resubmit the application at a later date.
• Case KZ2-2020 (Lamar Advertising, 81 and 101 U.S. Highway 1) was carried to September 29, 2026, with no re-notice required.
• Case KZ31-2025 (Tanujia Adiani, 110 Calvert Avenue East) was carried to August 25, 2026, with no re-notice required.
• Case KZ8-2025 (Sacred Foundation, 3880 Park Avenue) was improperly noticed and requires re-notice; no hearing occurred.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Donald Tar (52 Reader Road): Spoke against the variances, citing the extreme deviations from code (733% height increase, 270% sign area increase, 800% setback reduction). He argued the billboard would be a blight and diminish quality of life. Board members repeatedly reminded him to focus on the negative criteria (substantial detriment to public good or impairment of zoning plan).
• Lois Tar (52 Reader Road): Echoed her husband’s concerns, stating the variances make a mockery of township codes and would destroy neighborhood quality of life.
• Bill Armstrong (54 Reader Road): Expressed concern about light pollution from the sign being visible from every room in his house and raised safety concerns about driver distraction on Route 287. Board members accepted the safety comment as relevant to public good but noted lack of statistical evidence.
• Resident (62 Reader Road): Objected due to his son’s sensitivity to bright light; the board attorney clarified the limitation to negative criteria regarding substantial detriment or impairment.

Discussion Items

• Remand Background: Board Attorney Scott Salmon explained the Appellate Division remanded the case for the board to decide only the negative criteria (prong two) – i.e., whether the proposal would cause substantial detriment to the public good or substantially impair the township’s zoning plan. The positive criteria (special reasons) had been deemed satisfied by the court.
• Applicant’s Presentation: Attorney Jeff Lehrer (representing American Outdoor Advertising) confirmed the variances sought (height 110 ft vs. 15 ft allowed, sign area 672 sq ft vs. 250 sq ft, front yard setback 5 ft vs. 15 ft, etc.). He argued that the board’s burden was limited to determining if the negative criteria were met and that the applicant had no further burden. He also submitted a draft 2021 master plan re-examination report (marked A1) to address Judge McCluskey’s sua sponte ruling on ordinance invalidity, but noted the Appellate Division had vacated that portion.
• Board Questions: Members questioned the structure’s diameter (approx. 4–4.5 ft) and height. Tim Stonning (applicant’s representative) explained the unipole structure and that the height was necessary to be visible above I-287’s elevated roadway and sound barrier.
• Board Deliberation: Vice Chair O’Gorman made a motion to deny, stating the applicant failed to meet the negative criteria. Specific grounds included: the light-blocking technology was unproven and not patented; the 110-ft steel monopole with two 672 sq ft digital signs located 266 ft from homes would cause a detriment to quality of life regardless of the display’s visibility; the applicant did not show the sign’s appearance from residential areas; the proposed static billboard alternative was not comparable; and the proposal did not improve neighborhood aesthetics. Additional concerns about parking and tree removal were noted from the engineer’s report. Mr. Chabra added that the height was a compromise for the location and directly impacted residents’ quality of life and light pollution.

Key Outcomes

• Motion to Deny: Passed unanimously (7-0). The board denied the application for the requested variances, concluding that the applicant had not satisfied the negative criteria under the Municipal Land Use Law. The board will adopt a resolution with detailed findings.
• Meeting Adjourned: The meeting concluded shortly after the vote.