Edison Zoning Board of Adjustment Regular Meeting - July 28, 2026

The Township of Edison Zoning Board of Adjustment held a regular meeting on July 28, 2026, starting at 7:00 PM. The board considered multiple applications, including a bulk variance for a residential addition, a major subdivision and variance case for two new homes, a proposal for a water treatment facility upgrade to meet new federal PFAS standards, and an amendment to a prior approval for a religious use. Several cases were carried to the August 25, 2026 meeting due to only five voting members present.

Consent Calendar

• Minutes of the June 30, 2026 meeting were approved unanimously.
• Resolution Z5-2026 (PSE&G) approved unanimously.
• Resolution Z9-2026 (Sharon's Patel) approved unanimously.
• Resolution for Jeremy Genethel approved unanimously.
• Case Z6-2026 (Rajash Kumar Patel at 96 Overbrook Avenue) was found to be improperly noticed and will be re-noticed for a future date.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Case Z15-2026 (Swan Nugent): One resident (Tan Ryan, 49 Stony Road) spoke in support of the application. No other public comments.
• Case Z2-2026 (Emmerprit qua quan): Multiple residents within 200 feet and beyond testified in opposition. Key concerns included drainage and flooding on Highland Avenue, increased traffic and parking congestion, setting a precedent for subdividing conforming lots on Washington Avenue, and potential negative impacts on water runoff and groundwater. Speakers included Al Canon Freund (178 Washington Ave), Michael Willinger (173 Highland Ave), David Eisner (69 Miniola Place), Elisa Morla (65 Miniola Place), Jenna Freund (178 Washington Ave), Sylvia Toronda (152 Highland/230 Washington), Charles Newstead (Highland Ave), Abraham Gruber (161 Highland Ave), David Itskowitz (83 Marshall Drive), and Asaf Schmuel. Many noted that their own lots are 50x100 undersized and objected to creating more such lots.
• Case Z10-2026 (Middlesex Water): One resident, Joan Giles (76 Fairview Avenue), spoke in opposition. She expressed concerns about tree removal (96 trees removed, replaced with smaller trees), dust from construction, and the fact that her neighborhood does not receive Middlesex Water service, questioning the benefit of the project. She also argued that the 200-foot notice radius was insufficient for a project of this scale.
• Case Z8-2025 (Sacred Foundation): Several residents of the Park Gate community spoke in opposition to removing the condition closing the north entrance. Speakers included Elena Siniasky (26 Carriage Place), Robert Yannazzo (27 Carriage Place), Dr. James Hanlon (82 Park Gate Drive), Louis Weh (3895 Park Avenue), Rinky Singh (47 Gatehouse Lane), and Nicholas Vezard (45 Park Gate Drive). They cited safety concerns, near-miss accidents, confusion for drivers, increased traffic, and the prior board's decision to protect public safety. One speaker questioned notification procedures. The Park Gate Condominium Association's attorney, Damon Cress, also argued against the amendment.

Discussion Items

Case Z15-2026: Swan Nugent – Bulk Variance for Rear Addition at 47 Stony Road

Applicant Tuan Wen requested a bulk variance to add a rear addition and deck to accommodate his elderly parents. Variances needed: building coverage from 23% to 33% and deck coverage from 4% to 5.5%. Exhibits included elevation drawings and photos of comparable homes. Adjacent neighbor submitted a letter of support. The board found the proposal met positive and negative criteria and was consistent with neighborhood characteristics. Vice Chairman O'Gorman moved to approve; motion seconded and passed unanimously.

Case Z2-2026: Emmerprit qua quan – Minor Subdivision and Bulk/Use Variances at 194 Washington Ave

Applicant sought to subdivide a 100x100 lot into two 50x100 lots, each with a new single-family home. Variances needed for lot area (5,000 sq ft vs 7,500 sq ft required), lot width (50 ft vs 75 ft), front yard setback (19 ft vs 25 ft for a porch), building coverage (28.8% vs 23%), and FAR (0.55 vs 0.44). Attorney Thomas Barlow presented testimony from planner/engineer John DuPont, who showed that 77% of lots within 200 feet are undersized and that the FAR variance was less intense than many multi-family homes in the area. The applicant noted the existing home is decrepit. Public testimony raised concerns about drainage, parking, and precedent. After public input, the board carried the case to August 25, 2026 for a vote, as only five members were present.

Case Z10-2026: Middlesex Water – Site Plan for PFAS Treatment Facility at 83 Fairview Ave & 300 Cedar Lane

Middlesex Water Company proposed constructing a 58,360 sq ft building and a 55-ft-tall silo (vs 45 ft max) to treat water for PFAS (forever chemicals) to meet new federal standards of 4 parts per trillion. The project is an inherently beneficial use. Expert witnesses: Brian Carr (VP of Engineering) explained the need for granular activated carbon and powdered activated carbon treatment; Dave Tanzi (civil engineer) detailed site layout, height requirements due to deep contactors, and a new secondary access road off Cedar Lane to minimize truck traffic on Fairview Avenue; planner Lorelei Totten testified that the height variances would not substantially impair the zone plan and that the site can accommodate the extra height given its 25-acre size and buffers. Tree removal: 96 trees removed, 128 new ones planted. Public comment raised concerns about tree size, dust, and lack of direct benefit to Fairview residents. The case was carried to August 25, 2026 for a vote due to only five members present.

Case Z8-2025: Sacred Foundation – Amendment to Condition at 3880 Park Ave

Sacred Foundation sought to amend condition 3A of its October 2025 approval (which required permanent closure of the Park Gate Drive access) because the landlord (who owns the building) cannot close the gate due to a recorded easement and the need for barrier-free access to medical tenants. Applicant proposed a substitute: prohibiting all temple-related traffic from using Park Gate Drive, with enforcement measures including signage and a six-month compliance lookback. Attorney Bob Smith presented the proposal. Public testimony strongly opposed any removal of the closure condition, citing safety and traffic hazards. The case was carried to August 25, 2026 for continuation and decision.

Key Outcomes

• Case Z15-2026: Approved unanimously (5-0). The applicant may proceed with the rear addition and deck.
• Case Z2-2026: Carried to August 25, 2026 at 7:00 PM in council chambers. No further notice will be sent.
• Case Z10-2026: Carried to August 25, 2026 at 7:00 PM in council chambers. No further notice will be sent.
• Case Z8-2025: Carried to August 25, 2026 at 7:00 PM in council chambers. No further notice will be sent.
• The board also held a closed session regarding Care One litigation (Z46-2017) with no action reported.
• Meeting adjourned after the last case.