Town of Edison zoning board of adjustment regular meeting of July 28th 2026 is now in session. Adequate notice of this meeting as required by the open public meetings act of 1975 has been provided by the annual notice published in the home news and tribune on December 24th, 2025 as posted in the main lobby
of the missile complex on December 4th, 2025. Please join me in the pledge of allegiance to the flag [clears throat] of the stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice
for all. >> Madam Secretary, roll call, please. >> Mr. Carly, >> here. >> Mr. Bradford >> here. >> Mr. Sammon >> here. >> Mr. Aayat >> here. >> Mr. Cerrito >> here. >> Mr. Patel >> here.
>> Mr. Sada >> here. >> Vice Chair Gorman >> here. >> And Chairman Gumba >> here. >> Thank you. >> Thank you, Madam Secretary. Madam Secretary, minutes for consideration, please. >> Minutes of June 30th, 2026 for approval. >> What's the board's pleasure? >> Motion to approve. >> Second. >> Motion made by Vice Chairman of Gorman,
second by Mr. Patel. Roll call, please. >> Mr. Patel, >> yes on the motion. >> Mr. Sada, >> yes on the motion. >> Vice Chair Gorman. >> Yes. >> And Chairman Gumba. >> Yes on the motion. Madam Secretary, first resolution for consideration. >> D5206 PSNG for approval.
>> What's the board's pleasure? >> Motion to approve. >> Second. Motion made by Vice Chairman Ogorman, second by Mr. Sedata. Roll call, please. >> Mr. Patel, >> yes on the motion. >> Mr. Sada, >> yes on the motion. >> Vice Chair Gorman, >> yes on a motion. >> And Chairman Kumba, >> yes on the motion. >> Next resolution.
>> Z9 2026. Chirons Patel for approval. >> What's the board's pleasure? >> Motion to approve. >> Second. >> Motion made by Vice Chairman Ogorman. Second by Mr. Patel. Roll call, please. >> Mr. Patel, >> yes on the motion. >> Mr. Sadda, >> yes on the motion. >> Vice Chair Gorman, >> yes on a motion. and chairman Kumba.
>> Yes on the motion and the final resolution >> 13 2026 Jeremy Jithl for approval. >> What's the board's pleasure? >> Oh go >> motion to approve. >> Second >> motion made by vice chairman O Gorman.
Second by Mr. Patel. Roll call, please. >> Mr. Patel. >> Yes on the motion. >> Mr. Sada. >> Yes on the motion. >> By Sher Gorman. >> Yes on a motion. >> And chairman Kumba? >> Yes on the motion. >> Thank you. >> Thank you Madam Secretary. Uh one notice for this evening. Case Z6 2026 Rajes
Kumar Patel at 96 o over O over O over O over O over O over O over O over O over O over O overbrook Avenue. Uh it was improperly noticed. Uh so they will have to renotice and a new date will be determined. Um so good evening ladies and gentlemen. This is a regular meeting of the township of Edison zoning board of adjustment. The board is composed of
Edison Township residents appointed by mal council who volunteer their time and service to the board. The mipal land use law requires a member successfully complete a land use training course ad ministered by the new New Jersey Department of Community Affairs. This board also holds in-house training conducted by our board professionals.
The zoning board abides by the provisions of the mip land use law in addition to our board's bylaws. The zoning board is a quasi judicial land use board which differs from the township planning board. Under the mal land use law, board members are required to be impartial and not allowed to discuss any case prior to being considered at a hearing. All applicants
have the opportunity to present their case before the board along with the opportunity for board members and board professionals to question the applicant and their witnesses. At the inclusion of the applicant's presentation of the case, the case will open to the public. Residents in 200 ft of subject site will be heard, followed by residents from outside of 200 ft. All residents will be
sworn in. They'll provide their name and address and they'll be given six minutes to comment on the application be considered without the opportunity for a rebuttal. Residents may ask questions of the applicant, the applicants professionals and board professionals. The board requests that these questions are asked prior to commentary being made
on the application. Once the commentary begins, a resident's timer will begin. The applicant will be allowed the opportunity for cross-examination of their witnesses. Under the law, the chair is allowed to stop any commentary which is repetitive or an attempt to filibuster the board. Further, the chair is allowed to stop any commentary that is irrelevant to the case or prohibited
from the board's consideration. Once public portions is closed, all public comments are ended unless new testimony is presented by the applicant. Following the closure of the public portion, the applicant will have the right of summation on their application. Following summation, the case will go to the board for a decision. This procedure has been followed by the board and is
similar to procedures followed by boards of adjustment statewide. The misable land use law requires the board to engage in a balancing act and is not required to strictly apply township ordinances, zoning plan, or master plan. As a board of adjustment, variances are granted when appropriately necessary
following all legal considerations. As been the case with prior boards, this board will see where we're at. If we are still in session around 10:30 p.m., I ask that all applicants, professionals, and residents should respect each other and be civil throughout all proceedings. I ask that you withhold applause, booing, or interrupting of anyone while
they're speaking. The chair will not tolerate any outbursts by applicants, professionals, or the public. Further, since most cases are being recorded by a court reporter, I ask that speakers do not speak over one another. Uh, first on our agenda is uh a close session. Madam Secretary,
>> this is for Z46 2017 Care1 litigation. >> Can I get a motion to go into close session? >> Motion to go into close session. >> Second. >> Motion made by Vice Chairman of Gorman. Second by Mr. Tell. All in favor signify by saying I >> opposed. Nay. The eyes have it. The board will adjourn to close session. We
should not Uh, the board will return to session. Madam Secretary, first case on the agenda, please. >> Case number Z15, 2026, Tuan Nan at 47 Stony Road. Applicant is seeking a bulk variance to construct a rear addition to the existing single family dwelling. The
following standards have not been met. Max building coverage required is 23%. Proposed is 33%. Max deck coverage required is 4%, proposed is 5.5%. Affected properties located in the RB zone designated as block number 117, lot
number 12 on the Edison Township tax map. All noticing paperwork is in order. >> Good evening. >> Good evening. Good evening, chairman and uh members of the board. Uh my name is Tuan Wen. I'm the homeowner of 47 Stony Road.
Uh thank you for your time tonight. >> All right. All right. My family and I uh have been part of Addison community for many years and our current home is only 3 minutes away from this property. So I'm here requesting approval for a
bulk varing uh to construct a rear addition and a rear deck for my existing single family home. The application requests uh a max building coverage uh from 23%
to 33%. And a deck uh max coverage uh from 4% to 5.5%. So the purpose of this project is to relocate my elderly parents
uh so they can live closer to us. My mother has fallen on stair multiple time in her previous home. So having a first uh a bedroom on the first floor is uh essential for her
safety. So living nearby will allow our family to provide daily care and respond quickly whenever they need help. And also the rear deck provide a safe
outdoor space for my elderly parent and uh allow our family to spend time together outside. So I have um I like to present uh three exhibit.
>> So I grab a mic. Uh you could they're for distribution to the board. >> Yeah. >> You could just hand them to the secretary and she'll distribute. >> And were the these previously were not submitted with your application? >> Uh the exhibit >> the exhibit correct. >> Uh no. >> Okay. So council
>> so we're going to mark this as exhibit A. one. We'll do exhibit A1. >> Okay. >> Just showing how the >> Okay. I'm sorry. There. So, there are three exhibits here. So, we'll mark them
as exhibit A1, A2, and A3 >> for each one. >> Okay. I'm sorry. You can continue. >> It's a two set. So >> what's funny? >> What's that? >> Comparables.
>> Oh, okay. There two. >> And then also the I use Google Earth for neighborhood comparison. >> We'll label the comparisons all A4. Exhibit A4. >> Yeah, you just pass it down and pass these down.
>> You can proceed, sir. So exhibit A is the existing front elevation and the exhibited B is the existing rear elevation. Exhibit C is the proposal concept
rendering. So you can see the the rear bedroom and then uh the rear deck. And then I use the Google Earth neighborhood comparison. So it's showing two nearby home within
200 ft of my property. So one has a rear addition and a deck. Uh so you can see uh how I label it. So that's home number comparable number one. So that's the one with the rear
edition and uh a deck. The address is 40 Stony Road and comparable number two at number 12 Bowwing Road. So that location has
rear and side addition and a pool. And these two home have similar rear addition and outdoor improvement. And I also um submit a letter support from my adjacent neighbor who cannot be
here today. So he's reviewed the proposal and support this application. And lastly, uh we respect uh we respectfully ask the board to approve our application and thank you for your
time and consideration. >> Thank you very much, Mr. Win. Does the board have any uh questions for Mr. Win? >> Mr. Chairman, vice chairman. So on on reference to your um comparables on 47 Stonybrook, 12 Baldwin, and 40 Stony
Brook. So that [laughter] meets the characteristics of the neighborhood based on the uh height and front and backyard distances. >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Any other questions? >> Thank you very much, Mr. W. Is that all
you have to Is that your case? >> Yeah, that's it. >> Okay. All right. So, we will now go out to the public. Anyone within 200 feet of subject site wanting to be heard, if you are within 200 feet, you receive the notice via certified mail. Seeing none, we'll go outside of 200 feet.
I have a >> Well, this is the opportunity public portion. >> Yes. My name I live at 49 Sony Road. >> I'm sorry. Could you could you just raise your right hand? Do you swear swear or affirm the testimony you give tonight will be the truth? >> Sure. >> Okay. I'm sorry. Could you say your name
again and your address? >> My name is Tanguin. I live 9 Stony Road and I agree to spot to him to sensor bada. >> Okay, that's all you have to say, sir. >> Yes, sir. >> Okay, thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay.
>> Is there anyone uh outside anyone else outside 200 feet wanting to be heard? >> Seeing none, can I get a motion to close public portion? >> Motion to close public session. >> Second. >> Motion made by Vice Chair Gorman, second by Mr. Patel. All in favor signify by saying I. >> Oppos? Nay. The eyes have it. Public
portions is now closed and I'll go to the board. Mr. Chairman, vice chairman. >> Yeah. To make a motion to approve this application based on the meeting the U local master plan ordinances, meeting the positive and negative criteria and meeting the characteristics of the neighborhood in reference to the
setbacks, the heights and the sideyard setbacks. And also the U neighbor uh fully supports this. >> And I'll also add that Mr. Wind does say within the parameters of the floor area ratio. In fact, he's well below the floor area ratio. Um, okay. Motion made
by Vice Chair McGorman. >> Second. Second by Mr. Certo. Roll call, please. >> Mr. Patel, >> yes to the Musa. >> Mr. Sada, >> yes to the motion. >> Mr. Cerrito, >> yes on the motion. >> Vice Chair Gorman, >> yes on a motion. >> And Chairman Gambo, >> yes on a motion. Mr. Win, congratulations. You have unanimous
approval. You were very, very well prepared. You presented the board very well. Uh, and uh, you're worthy of approval. Thank you so much. >> Thank you. Have a great night, >> Madam Secretary. Next case on the agenda, please. >> Case number Z2, 2026, Emmerit Craw at
194 Washington A. Applicant is seeking a minor subdivision along with bulk and use variances to construct two new single family dwellings. The following standards have not been met for both lots. Max F required is 44% proposed as 0 55%. Max lot building coverage
required is 23% proposed is 28.8%. Front yard setbacks required is 25 feet. Proposed is 19 feet. Lot width required is 75 ft proposed is 50 ft. Affected property is located in the RB zone designated as block number 63. Lot
number 1801 on the Edison Township tax map. All noticing paperwork is in order. >> Good evening, Mr. Barlo. >> Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board, board professionals. It's a pleasure to be back before you. For the record, my name is Thomas Barlo. I'm an attorney with Lombardi and Lombardi and
I'm licensed to practice law in the state of New Jersey. And I represent the applicant, Miss Kuau, who's the owner of the property at 194 Washington Avenue, which is block 63, lot 18.01.
Her and her husband reside in Edison are both present. >> No problem. I won't tap it though. I promise. Uh the board secretary has confirmed the appropriate notices have been sent and verified the board has jurisdiction. The
applicant purchased this property, this house, which is in pretty rough shape on an oversized lot in the RB district. The lot is 10,000 square ft or 229 acres. The proposal is to subdivide the lot down the middle curtain creating two new
lots 50 by 100 or 5,000 square ft in size and build two new homes. The RB zone zoning lot size is 7500 square ft. So we need a bulk variance for lot size and lot width which 75 ft is required and we have 50 ft.
We also need a bulk variance for minimum front setback where 25 ft is required and we're proposing 19 ft. Um, and just to be clear, we're not proposing that the house is going to be built in 19 ft. It's a covered porch which triggers the variance. Um, frankly, I think it adds
some character and some depth to the front of the houses so you don't just have a flat facade. We also need a bulk variance for imperous coverage of the building where 23% is allowed and we're proposing 28.8. I would note we meet the overall impervious coverage and we meet
all the side and rear yard setbacks and height standards. Finally, the homes require an F D4 variance where 444 is permitted and 0.55 is proposed. The homes will have unfinished basements uh
four bedrooms, four baths. Um we hope to present to you as we hope to present to you tonight. We believe this proposal is uniquely suited for this area. As you will hear, of the 39 other lots in the 200t area, 31 are over 79% are nonconforming as they are less than 75
ft wide. 26 are 50 ft wide or less. Six or less than 50 ft. So, the subdivision is clearly consistent with the neighborhood. I have John Dupon, a professional engineer and planner here to testify, address the board's professionals reports, and the reasons
the relief sought can be granted. Uh, Miss Cohower and her husband are here also if the board have any questions of them. At this point, unless the board has any preliminary questions of me, I would call Mr. Dupont. >> Board of any preliminary questions, Mr.
Barlo. Seeing none, you may proceed. >> Do you swear affirm the testimony you give tonight will be the truth? >> I do. >> State your name and address for the record, please. >> John P. Dupant, 756 Jackson Road, Stewartsville, New Jersey. >> Mr. Dupont, you appeared before the board prior. if you could just give us a brief summary of your background
qualifications. >> Yes, I am a professional engineer in the state of New Jersey as well as a professional planner. I've served for the Bur of Carter as their planning and zoning board engineer for past 28 years uh and also a professional planner for about 15. I've been in front of this board as well as boards throughout the
state. All my licenses are currently in good standing. >> And you're just for the record, you're looking to be accepted as a professional planner and professional engineer. >> That is correct. >> We'll accept as both may proceed. Thank you very much. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. >> Mr. Mr. Barl, I'm sorry. We're going to have to we can grab that other
microphone. Yeah, this way you guys can to make it easier. Thank you. I'll start that again. Mr. Dupont, you prepared the engineering plans in this matter, reviewed the application, the FAR calculation, and the architectural plans. >> That is correct. As an initial matter,
the single family homes that are proposed are of permitted use in the RB zone. Correct. >> Correct. >> Can you generally go over the proposal for the board? >> Yes. Uh and I'll do it first from an engineering standpoint and then we'll shift over to a planning standpoint. So the property we're talking about is 194
Washington Avenue. That's block 63, lot 1801. It is in the RB residential zone. The property consists of a single residential dwelling that fronts on Washington Avenue within an established residential neighborhood. The
surrounding area is served by existing public infrastructure such as public water, sewer, electric, gas, and other utilities. The proposed application is a minor subdivision dividing the existing parcel
into two residential lots. Each of the proposed lots will front on Washington Avenue. Each will contain one single family dwelling which are which is a permitted use in the RB zone. There's no new public streets are proposed. No roadway improvements are
required. No utility modifications are necessary. From an engineering standpoint, it's relatively straightforward infill subdivision application. The proposed lots have adequate frontage to provide safe vehicle access, utility
connections, emergency access, and the installation of all necessary site improvements. Public water and sewer are available for each lot. Subdivision can be designed in accordance with acceptable engineering practice and can be constructed without creating any adverse impacts to
surrounding neighborhoods. [clears throat] With respect to drainage, that's usually a topic. The proposed subdivision results in an increase in imperous area of 831 square ft total. It's dimminimous. Uh the drainage flow
patterns and runoff patterns will be completely unchanged. The increase in runoff will be unmeasurable be dimminimous. I do not anticipate any increase in peak flow any impacts to adjoining properties or the mishable drain system.
All soil erosion control measures will be installed and appropriate and permits obtained with respect to utilities. Each >> stop you right there just and also confirm we're not in a flood zone. Correct. >> We are not >> and that was confirmed by the township engineer report. >> Okay.
>> With utilities um each each lot will be served by existing services. There is sufficient capacity from all utility services to provide service variances. As you heard, there's several dimensional variances. Lot area, lot
width, front yard setback, lot coverage, and F. From an engineering perspective, those are basically zoning issues. And we'll get into a little more deep during the planning testimony. Uh there are no varianes created any engineering def deficiencies or public
safety concerns. We have two reports from your professional staff. DNR's report April 2nd uh 2026. We could comply with all them but there's there is two options I like to there's two comments I like to just
bring a little attention to in the DNR letter 4.1 talks about street lighting and a revised lighting plan. So we won't have a lighting plan for this because it's residential property but we'll we will provide house lighting. I just want to
clarify that. >> I think that's what Mr. Carly was seeking. >> I think that's that's correct, Mr. Carly. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yeah, my comment 4.1 is really observational. Uh Mr. Dupont does propose building mounted uh house fixtures fixtures with only a
lighting blah blah blah. And I just note that for the board and really just ask Mr. DuPont to uh put in testimony uh what I think is obvious that the lighting that he proposes is adequate for the proposed residential dwelling.
That's all >> it adequate. >> Yes, it is for residential. >> And the [clears throat] other comment is just 4.5 talks to consideration of an irrigation system for the plantings. Um, we will certainly talk to the applicant and and
perhaps provide that, but at this moment we're not it's not on a plan. It's not proposed. >> It's a residential home seeking, I guess, a sprinkler system. I I hadn't seen that before, but if that's something the the board insists
on, we would comply. But, um, >> Mr. Carly >> again using the skills I've honed over 50 years reading uh general note number 15 uh commits to putting a sprinkler system on the uh the residential
dwelling and so I pick up on that uh reading the plan and I note that as a matter of uh information. Uh there's nothing in the ordinance that obligates uh the installation of a uh of irrigation but it's on the plan so I bring it out. It's voluntary. If the
applicant wants to put it in, he may. If or she may. If she doesn't want to put it in, [snorts] she may not. >> Thank you for the clarification, Mr. Carlin. >> That really concludes the engineering portion of my testimony. >> Okay. So, we'll go to the board and see
if they have any questions with regard to engineering. >> Mr. Chairman, vice chairman. >> 3.1 in reference to the parking. Just uh testimony shall be provided. So Mr. Carly refers to the RSIS standard for a fourbedroom house 2.5 spaces are
required and then if you look at the subnote of that when it's 2.5 for four bedroom you can round down to two. So we provide two spaces for each house we meet the parking standard. >> Thank you. >> Any other questions from the board? >> See none. Okay you can change hats now.
>> Okay. Um I'll I'll tee up. >> Um now based on the plans as you indicated there's several bulk or flexible C2 variances that are needed. Correct. >> That is correct. >> And you've indicated there for uh you have ones for lot width uh lot size uh
the front setback because of the covered porch and the impervious building coverage but not overall impervious coverage. Correct. >> Correct. >> Uh for what we call the setback requirements, we meet all of them except for the front setback. Right. Correct. >> As it relates to the neighbors, the side
and rear yard setbacks are met. Correct. >> They are. >> The house is appropriately sized and will be built to the uh township height standards. Correct. >> Correct. >> And while there's a variance for maximum lot coverage of the house, we meet and are under the impervious coverage standard of 40% overall. Correct.
>> That is correct. >> Is it fair to say because we are meeting the side and rear yard setbacks, the houses will not dominate the properties or the surrounding neighborhood? >> I would agree with that. As it relates to lot size and lot width, we need variances for those. And you examined the surrounding lots and created an
exhibit. Correct. >> We did. >> Uh I would ask that we mark that as A1. I have copies for the board, Mr. Chairman. >> Mr. Sam, it's >> fine. Okay. So, I'm going to let me see it first. [snorts] Just one page.
>> Yes. >> So, we'll mark this as exhibit A1. the 200 foot radius map. >> Mr. Carly, you created that exhibit. >> Yes, I did. [laughter] >> Mr. Carly, you created that exhibit.
>> For the record, that's Mr. Dupont. >> Mr. Dupont created that exhibit. >> But yes, we did. >> I was going to say Mr. Carly, you got to stay in your lane there. >> He's wearing two hats. >> Got some splain. No, exactly. >> That would be a problem. [laughter] Mr. Dupont, uh you created this exhibit that's been marked as A1. >> Yes, I did.
>> And could you uh go over the board uh go over with the board what it what it depicts. >> So, that exhibit you have in front of you is a map of the area. It's a 200 foot radius map shown and it shows the 40 lots within 200 feet of this property
and it calls out the lots that are undersized. And of the 40 lots, 31 of them are undersized, deficient in width and area. That's 77%. Majority and that's so the the zone
requires 75 by 100. 77% are under that. Those lots as you see are mainly 50 by 100 which is consistent with our application. There's also six of those lots are under 50 foot. So, our 50 our 50 by 100 lot subdivision. Our lots will
meet the characteristics of the neighborhood. Okay. Um, in addition, the applicant requires a D4 FAR variance for each home. Correct. >> That is correct. >> Can you generally go over what that is and what's being proposed?
>> Right. So, the proposed homes remain consistent with the neighborhood although they do exceed the F requirement. The proposed buildings remain compatible, but the F allowable in his own is 044. We're proposing 0 55.
We created a second exhibit, which we might want to give to the board. Okay. Exhibit number two is coming to you. It's again, it's the same 200T radius map. This time, we looked at the 40 homes within 200 ft and identified all the homes that have an F
violation currently. So, we're going to mark this as exhibit A2. >> So, that plan you're seeing has has two things on it. First, it has notation of which homes exceed the F current Currently. There are three of them within 200 ft.
And when we're looking at that, we we looked a little closer at the neighborhood. Found something pretty interesting. In addition to this, the three lots that exceed [clears throat] the F which F right is controlling your density, your intensity of the use. There are 16 homes
of those 40 that are multiple families that are not permitted in a zone. Multiple families. There are 15 that are two families and there's even a one three family home in that zone. So as I look at the F for us going over
by point, you know, one one over the requirement, we are still much less intense than the 16 homes within 200 ft of our property that have multiple families, multiple families in it, multiple cars in it, more traffic, more demand on our neighborhood. Our small F,
we're building a modern home and that's why we're exceeding the F in a smaller lot. much less intense and intense use of services and on the community. So I think our F variance to build a modern home will be
consistent with the neighborhood and quite frankly less demanding than the other houses in the neighborhood. >> Now under the Randolph Town Center Associates case and the New Jersey Supreme Court decision in the Coventry Square case, is it your opinion that the site will accommodate what's been proposed?
>> Yes, it will. Are there any I'm sorry >> I was say all utilities in place can support the building completely >> and there no problems to your knowledge that are associated with the proposed use? >> None. >> And would you agree that the single family homes permitted
um on the 50 by 100 lot will fit the character of the neighborhood replaces an older decrepit home with two homes built to today's safety and energy standards? >> Yes. said there is this neighborhood is seeing some re new redevelopment. There are a lot of older homes in the area but there are beginning of some new homes
and this will meet that. >> Can the far variance and the bulk variances be granted without substantial detriment to the public good? >> Absolutely. >> And why is that? >> I think that the the it meets the neighborhood. It meets the it meets the
um characteristics of the neighborhood. it doesn't impact adversely adjoining properties with drainage or grading or intensity or traffic or meeting all those requirements. >> Um what is your opinion as to whether there would be substantial impairment to
the zone plan and ordinance? >> I don't think there'd be any detrimental impact to the zone plan or the or the zoning ordinance by this application. And based on your review of the surrounding properties in the 200 foot
area, uh is it your opinion that the board could grant the proposed subdivision again without impairment to the zone plan ordinance? >> It is. >> Um have you ever gone over the positive negative? >> I take it. >> Okay. What are the
>> positive and negative criteria as you found them? >> So we go back to the C variances first. Positive criteria. Um, we use the C2 variance for this application. The subdivision certainly advances several purposes of the MLUL. Purpose A, to encourage municipal action that
guides appropriate use and land development. The proposal represents appropriate residential infield development within an established neighborhood utilizing ex existing infrastructure. Purpose G to provide sufficient space and appropriate locations for residential uses. The
subdivision creates two residential buildings while maintaining the existing character of the neighborhood. Purpose I to promote desirable visual environment through good civic design and arrangement. The proposed homes will be consistent with the surrounding residential development and will
continue with the existing street shape along Washington Avenue and purpose M efficient use of land. Rather than requiring additional infrastructure or expanding development outward, the proposal makes efficient use of existing residential parcel already served by
municipal improvements. Um, as far as negative criteria, again, this meets the characteristic neighborhood. This isn't an overburdens. This is just a modern home um that is meeting all the setbacks except for that front yard setback with a front covered porch. It's not the building being too
close. It'll meet the criteria, meet the um neighborhood. In my opinion, it satisfies the standards. The homes um again, public utilities already exist. No adverse environmental impacts, no drainage impacts,
and I think it's just building a modern home is reason why we're ask for relief. >> Now, we had gone over the uh DNR report with regards to the Neglia planning report of July, most recently revised July 24th, 2026. I realize uh a lot of it
it'sformational, but on page three of six under number four in terms of what's permitted in the uh RB residential district, um multifamily homes are not permitted in the dis in the zone as is currently
written. >> They are not. And then with regards to the planner's comments under heading six [snorts] um we agreed that we will comply with
the township ordinance with regards to obviously the homes can't look alike. They have to have uh unique characteristics that if we're successful we will work with the board's planner to make sure that we comply. >> Absolutely.
I believe so, Mr. Bradford. >> So, just to reiterate just on the characteristics of the um of the homes, you're obviously they're I'm sorry. Um,
you're saying obviously that the the houses aren't going to look alike, but they are going to match the aesthetics in terms of the community character and uh some of the other houses that you've already brought up. Correct.
>> Absolutely. Absolutely. And and what my intention would be is if we um the board would act favorably on our application, we would work to the board planner to make sure that before building permits are issued or anything that uh we comply and and we meet your uh requirements as
to fitting the neighborhood and that they're not mirror images. They're not identical. >> Absolutely. >> Okay, that's uh all the questions I have. Great. Thank you, Mr. Bradford. I think that completes our planning testimony. >> Great. Does the board have any questions
for Mr. Dupont with regard to planning testimony? >> Seeing none. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Dupont. >> Thank you, Mr. Par. >> Mr. Chairman, I I wasn't going to plan on calling any witnesses. I know you have uh a busy night um and there's a lot of public. So, at this point, I
would um I wouldn't call any further witnesses. And if you want to open to the public, we can address any comments they may have. >> Great. So, we will now go out to the public. Uh we will start within res within residents within 200 feet of subject site want to be heard. Please approach. Uh all residents will have 6 minutes uh for any commentary on the
proposed application. >> Good evening. Could you raise your do you swear affirm the testimony give tonight will be the truth? >> I affirm. >> Could you give your name and address for the record, please? >> Sure. Uh my name is Alan Freind. I'm at 178 Washington Avenue.
>> Sure. Of course. E L C H A N A N. Last name is spelled F R E U N D. >> Sure. >> Question. Did you say 178? >> Yes. >> Washington. >> Correct. >> You can continue. So, members of the
board, I respectfully object to the application seeking a minor subdivision, a D4 floor um area ratio variance, multiple bulk variance for 194 Washington Avenue. According to the public notice, the applicant seeks
approval to subdivide the property and construct two single family detached homes while obtaining variances for minimum lot area. minimum lot width, minimum front setback, maximum lot
coverage, and floor area ratio. The subject property is approximately, as you heard, 100x 100 ft and is currently improved with the um improved with a single family home. The property
is located within the RB zone and already functions in as a residential lot. The property is not unusable. It is not landlocked. It is not uniquely shaped. It is not incapable of
supporting residential development. In fact, the property already contains a single home family home and currently enjoys a lawful residential use. This application is not necessary to allow
residential use of the property. The applicant is attempting to increase the density of development by creating two residential building lots where only one conforming lot presently exists. The
board should recognize that a desire to maximize development potential or increase financial return is not the same as a zoning hardship. The property already has a valuable and
reasonable use as it exists today. Perhaps most importantly, the applicant purchased the property with full knowledge of the existing zoning regulations. The zoning restrictions did not change
after purchase. The lot size, frontage requirements, setback requirements, lot coverage requirements, and F limitations were already in place when the property was acquired. The applicant voluntarily
purchased a conforming residential lot and is now seeking permission to divide that lot into two nonconforming lots. What hardship existed before the
applicant decided to subdivide the property? The answer appears to be none. The lot complies today. The variances became necessary only because the applicant wishes to create an additional
building at lot and increase the density of development. A property owner should not be permitted to purchase a conforming lot, create nonconforming conditions through subdivision, and then rely upon those
self-created conditions as justification for variance relief. The need for lot area variances, lot width variances, setback variances, lot coverage variances, and far relief does
not arise from any unique characteristic of the land itself. It arises from the applicant's decision to split one conforming lot into two lots and
maximize developmental development potential. The municipal land use law was not intended to grant variances simply because a property owner can make money by building two homes instead of one.
Lastly, characteristics. What Washington Avenue's characteristic is not the same as other characteristics of the rest of the streets around us. and to bring a lot 16 lots is not the
same when we talk about characteristics. Let's be fair. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. Next president within >> I have a couple questions. >> Mr. Bar, can you Mr. F, can you come back? Thank you. >> I'm sorry. You said you live at one you
you said you live at 178 Washington. >> Correct. >> And what was your name again, sir? >> Alan Freins. >> Okay. the the tax assessor's office says that the owner of that property is Shing Chan and Su Yung. >> Then you may not have the right one
because I've been paying taxes for over 19 years. >> Okay. Well, again, that's the that's what the taxes. Okay. And you're you live at the corner of Minnola and Washington, right? >> Correct, sir. >> And your lot's 50 by 100. >> Correct.
>> So your lot's unders sized. >> Okay. Your lot's the same size as the lots we're proposing. >> I understand that. >> Okay. And you understand that if you wanted to like put an addition on your house or put a deck on that exceeded, you would have to come before the zoning
board and get variance relief. You understand? >> Million%. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Fun. Next member of the public within 200 ft. I I affirm to tell >> I just have to formally say it. Do you affirm that the testimony you give tonight will be the truth?
>> I affirm. Yes. >> Okay. Say state your name and address, please. >> Michael Willinger, 173 Highland Avenue. >> You could adjust the microphone just so it's more comfortable for you. >> Michael Willinger, 173 Highland Avenue, Edison, New Jersey.
>> W I L I N G- E. So, I also object to the splitting of the lot and I do have a f uh a 100x 50 square foot lot today. So, I will admit that I'm one of the 72% and I guess I
would ask how many of those lots have been divided recently or have been granted a variance recently cuz my house was built about 100 years ago as well as all the other houses and that. So using the I guess the characteristic of the community and knowing what the what the
laws are today and changing those laws today um you know or making variances for those laws today you know would be a change in precedent and it would sort of it would violate that 7500 square foot rule. Um Washington Avenue I guess I
could say the same thing. I think what what people don't realize is that um right now all the water runoff from Washington Avenue runs onto Highland Avenue. So that's I guess it's not going to be on an engineering thing, but if anybody drives by today, they're going
to see huge puddles and water buildup on Highland Avenue. And that's there pretty much like pretty much all the time except in drought conditions. So what that means is if we're digging up more basement and we're displacing more soil to build two houses instead of one and
also to just you know to use more I guess land than is allowed. That's just more water runoff and I could just kind of I don't have a picture because nobody takes pictures of unsightly things you know throughout the year but I can paint a picture for what it looks like on
Highland Avenue. So in the winter it's all ice. Like on the corner of Highland Avenue and Marshall, it's an ice sheet for most of the winter. And what that means is people slipping, cars, you know, like Tokyo drifting and antilock
breaking all the time. So that's kind of like the what the winter experiences is. The summer and the I would say the summer and the fall the experience is a lot of mosquito breeding, a lot of insects. you know, you walk by and you're shaking off those like little
gnats um because they just like stick to your clothes. But that's a lot of that is, you know, water runoff from Washington Avenue. The other thing, and then the spring, of course, we have algae. So, we got algae, we got chemicals. It looks pretty cuz it's like
rainbow color that's sitting water, but that's all like that. It's been there I think since I moved in, but it's it's it's constant. It's always there. It's running from Washington Avenue like the sun pumps are always pumping that water and they're pumping it to you know like
kind of around Washington down Washington around Marshall and then it kind of like sits on Highland Avenue. So I think that would be my you know I guess one of the reasons for the objection. The other thing is when we talk about conforming or non-conforming lots in the area and the neighborhood,
um having 50 by 100s does create a lot of density and Highland Avenue is proof of that. Everybody sort of has their parking spots and if you park in the wrong spot, you get a note on your car on your windshield and that's you know that's what happens. So we're kind of to
put that I guess that stress on Washington Avenue to tell everyone on Washington who which that street has mostly 100 by 50 lot or has mostly I think 100 by 100 lots I would say most of that block you know you're going to kind of by subdividing it and setting
that precedent right that precedent that was established 100 years ago for most of the non-conforming Highland Avenue or um Lexington Avenue lots which you probably see in your chart um you know like what it does is it stresses out the rest of the
neighborhood. It you know it makes parking much more difficult. Um and it's it's just we're kind of like setting ourselves backwards you know with whatever we're talking about with modern safe you know houses which I think was part of the the goal that was testified
to this would be sort of you know going back to these are the hundred-year-old lots um this is the traffic that it causes. This is the issue we have with parking and um the water displacement and all those other issues. So I guess I would just pose the question what is the
public good of splitting um you know a conforming 100 by 100 lot like what is the public good that we're that we're striving for because I can say all the you know public bad that you know that such a precedent would set.
Just a couple of questions, Mr. Chairman. Um, and I'm sorry, your name again, sir. Was >> Michael Willinger, homeowner since >> Any idea who Barbara Saka is? Sarca? >> I bought it from the estate of Barbara Sarca. She's been
>> um, you know, married I think 10 years ago. >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> Um, according to our review, it looks like almost every single lot on Highland is a 50 by 100 lot. Correct. >> As of when?
>> As of today, >> right now. >> Yeah. From 100 years ago when split. >> And you heard Mr. Dupont's testimony that there won't be any additional runoff onto Washington from these two homes. >> I I heard the your expert witness's
testimony as to what he's testifying as to what he's paid to do. Yes. >> Okay. But you're not an engineer, correct? >> No, I don't. Yes. And and you understand that the township engineer indicated that from a runoff or um storm water
issue management issue, we're not making any condition worse than what's out there already. So if we're putting more stuff on the property than what was already there, by definition, isn't that worse? If we're
covering more land than what was there, wouldn't that by definition be worse if it's >> the the testimony was it was not? >> But I I guess it's common sense, right? It's more more land coverage is worse than less land coverage.
>> What the testimony was is there only 831 square feet of new impervious. So that's the increase. >> What's the water absorption of that? >> The minimum measurements. You're not you're not going to see any change in peak runoff at all. the joining properties and then the grading pattern gets it to the street. But it's it's not
even it's not even enough water that you'd be able to measure it. >> Is that cubic feet or is that square feet? >> Peak would be, but it's 831 square feet. >> Square. Okay. Going down six. How deep is the basement? >> Well, basement has nothing to do with the surface water run off.
>> Oh, but we're also talking about absorption water absorption, aren't we? >> We're not. >> Well, cuz I So, what I witnessed on Washington Avenue is sun pumps. There's a lot of people pumping, right? Everybody has to displace the water that the other that and they're pumping out,
right? They have to pump out the water that would otherwise be absorbed by the ground. So, it's a lot of sun pumps that are consistently pumping. So, even when it doesn't rain, you still have consistent water flow onto Highland Avenue. >> Okay, that that sounds like a groundwater issue.
>> What is that? >> Water in water below the surface. Ground water in in the soils. That's different than surface water runoff. So then I I Okay. But then then then there then you're admitting that there's more water be due to sun pumps pushing out water as
opposed to runoff from rain. >> Not at all. I'm saying there's two separate items. If you have >> I testified to both items. I'm >> No, I didn't do any I didn't do any studies on your sump pumps in your ground in your uh your your uh >> Okay. So I'm saying that I'm saying that
there's an there's displaced ground. Um there's displaced ground that's going to be there, right? By making a bigger basement, you're displacing ground which would otherwise absorb water, >> but it may not impact at all groundwater. So look, if you want to
look about surface waters, you talk about the increase in impervious coverage on the surface. If you're talking about impact of groundwater, one one basin versus two, maybe there's something there, maybe there's not there. I don't No, I didn't do a study on the groundwater in in Highland Avenue
for sure or our property. >> Okay. So then it sounds like it's an incomplete test test. >> No, it's not. It's it's complete. We're required to look at the increase in appropriate coverage and an increase in storm water runoff. I'm telling you there's dimminimous increase.
>> Okay. So then I'm testifying to the to the to the sump pumps that are pumping all the water, you know, like throughout the year with the high. >> And if you have a sump pump and you're pumping your basement, it's very common. And you probably pump it to the street. >> Yes. >> So, and then all that water that gets
pumped onto the street flows down Washington Avenue, as I stated before, goes down goes down Marshall and then sits on Highland Avenue. >> I don't know if the stormware system for the township isn't there to collect it properly or if it's not slow proper. I don't know.
>> Okay. Okay. So, that's what I'm testifying to. >> Okay. Thank you very much, sir. >> Thank you. Uh, next res within 200 feet. >> Good evening. Our attorney, raise your right hand. Our swear. >> Do you swear affirm the testimony tonight will be the truth.
>> I affirm. >> Say your name and address for the record, please. >> My name is David Eisner. I live at 69 Mola Place. I hope the record still shows that. >> Please. [snorts] >> Eis ner. Um, I live diagonally from this property
and I grew up parallel to this property. >> You could, so if you could just adjust the microphone. >> It's not meant for people this height. [laughter] >> Take the mic off. >> Um, I live diagonally across from this property and I grew up one block parallel and directly parallel to this
property. So I think I would have somewhat of a idea of what the character of the community is. I moved away to Queens for a little bit and I came back specifically to move back to a suburban community where I would have a front yard, a backyard and there would be green spaces.
Being that uh I bought my house on Washington Avenue, Washington Avenue, as you'll see with with their survey that they show sent you, most of the houses on Washington Avenue are 75 by 100. There are a few towards the end towards Marshall that are 50 by 100 and then some past Manola that are 50 by 100.
um Highland Avenue which is probably most of the survey is all 50 by 100 and Lexington Avenue has many one of them there are a few that are 46 like you said there are some super uh even less than the 50 that they're that they're uh that they're proposing um like the zoning board and previous zoning boards
had were very calculated when they made the standardized lots of 75 by 100 to change that would be super detrimental to the community that I grew up in and that I moved back to for now there are a lot of houses that are 50 by 100 on other blocks and like I said I didn't
move on those blocks because I didn't want to be on in a 50 by 100 area but also those lots have been there for 100 years and the two family houses have been there for a hundred years and that being said the fact that something was approved a 100 years ago has very little
relevance to what we see today what I see around is I see most lots are 7500 around this exact property not on on different blocks it's different And that and therefore that character would definitely be completely changed if we
started breaking up every 100 by 100 lot into two lots. I know I grew up in a 100 by 100 lot on the next block and if it was also divvied up it would make the whole block you know like we said much more dense. No parking. There's already a there's a apartment building nearby.
Um there's there's no there's no parking. There's a school nearby. There's there's very little parking. to have to move in two families into a place that had one house is definitely detrimental to most of the neighbors. The fact that it's decrepit and they want to put nice a nice two nice houses also I don't think is a real is really a
factor. We could have one nice house as opposed to as opposed to one decrepit house. There were a lot of people were interested in buying the property. They could have put in a nice house. they decided to buy it and hoping that they could get the two, but there were plenty of people who were looking at that house and wanted to put up just their one nice
house that we would have been very happy with. Um, also that being said, the parameters of the ask of the variance, besides for the fact of just splitting it into two, which in and of itself is super detrimental and like the previous person said, the runoff on the street is
horrible. When I grew up 30 years ago, there was there used to be drains on the corners that used to collect rainwater. Those were closed up many years ago. So now the streets are just rivers whenever it rains. And obviously displacing more dirt, even though that's not what the
survey was about, the testimony was about. Replacing more dirt will increase the runoff of on the street because you see comes out after every storm, many days afterwards, there's tons of runoff. Um, that being said, it's a pretty impressive ask that they were willing to
even ask all these things. They keep on saying they're only they're not changing previous, but they're they asked for a,000 extra square feet on that lot, 500 each of their proposed lots and or 600 extra of of coverage. Like they said, almost 580, whatever it is. Um, these
excessive variances will make the house look like oversized lot houses trying to escape the parameters of the of the property. It's definitely not the look. If you drive down the street now, it's definitely not what they have now. Even the 50 by 100 lots that they have now that they that they're claiming there's so many of, the houses are pretty small.
They're not such large houses. There's there's not so many like that. Um um I think that's all I have to uh say. Thank you. >> Thank you very much, sir. >> A quick question and I'm going to do this through Mr. Dupont. That particular
lot is on your exhibit A2, correct? >> That is correct. >> Why is it, >> Mr. Barlo, if you just bring the microphone closer? >> I'm sorry. It's on your exhibit A2. Why is it highlighted? >> Um, I believe it's 50 lot 50.01, which exceeds the F requirement of the zone. >> Okay.
>> Thank you very much, sir. Next resident within 200 feet of subject site want to be heard. >> Could you raise your right hand, please? Uh, Ryan. Yeah. >> Do you swear or affirm the testimony you give tonight will be the truth? >> Yes. >> You say state your name and address for the record, please. >> Elisa Mora, 65, Minnola Place,
E L I S A. Last name Mora, M O R L A. >> Yes. Um, I also object u with the proposal. Um, I have now been living there for about me. My husband Brian Mora um have been living there now for 11 years on Miniola. I currently work
for John Marshall Elementary School that is getting all of the improvements and the construction that's happening. Um so I walk routinely to to work. That's what I do. Rain, shine, whatever. I I'm always walking. Um I am well aware of my
area. I've seen the struggles that Washington comes u that deals with in terms of water. Um all of the sump pumps coming out when it rains. Sometimes Minnola, that intersection of Minnola and Washington is a giant puddle. So more water adding to it is going to be a
problem. Um I am also um I walk continuously down this block. So I know what these houses look like and for the proposal what they're proposing does not fit the way that the street is and the houses that are on the street currently.
I am probably also one of those houses um that does not fall within the ordinances. It I believe my house was built in 1963. Um but regardless, I'm also very close to my neighbor and I know my house is
positioned very differently. So I don't have a backyard. I'm more of like a side side and a front yard. My backyard is like really next to my neighbor. So, I'm well aware of what it is to feel that confined sense of space. And I believe this proposal is also doing that with
two different houses. Um, along with that, along with all of the things that were mentioned and the things that I said, parking is a huge issue on that street. Um, in particular, we have a lot of things going on. You guys don't live on our block, so it's difficult to
understand, but there is construction that's going on at the elementary school. um much needed improvements. So yeah um but regardless there is construction workers that park on the streets that congest the streets. There are the staff sometimes because the parking lots are now full considering
the construction the staff has to park in the those streets. So it's very congested along with the fact that there are two places of worship on many um on Washington itself. The congestion is a lot. So, for um the gentleman to claim that there is going to be sufficient
space to park, I don't believe that to be true. And I don't think anyone that lives on that street would believe that to be true. Um because that's four bedrooms. So, you're assuming four people, right? They're all going to drive. They're going to have guests. Um
so, that's way more cars now added to the situation and to the congestion of the block already. Um so, yeah, I I firmly object to um to the proposal. Thank you very much. >> Yes. [snorts] >> Indicated you have an undersized.
>> Mr. Barlo, if you could bring the microphone closer. >> You you had indicated your lots under sized also. It's 50 by 100. So I wasn't going to ask you. Okay. >> Okay. Wonderful. >> Thank you. >> Thank you very much. Next resident within 200 ft. >> Could you raise your right hand, please? Do you swear affirm the testimony you
give tonight will be the truth? >> I affirm. My name is Jenna Freind. I live at 178 Washington Avenue. If I sure Jenna Jeene Na, last name Fu N.
I have a letter here. My uh the neighbor next door was unable to be present. Her [clears throat] name is Cheryl Farcus. Would you like me to spell it? >> I'm going to object to Yeah, we can. Unfortunately, we can't we can't accept a separate letter because the applicant
doesn't have an opportunity to question or cross-examine that that individual. So, you can speak on your own experience, but we can't accept it from someone else. >> Okay. >> And am I able to give the letter in as part of >> I would object submitted or read it
doesn't really make it >> the same effect. But I'm sorry, ma'am. What was your address again? >> 178 Washington Avenue. Well, I will again bring off the bring up the runoff then and I know the lawyer here like you keep asking people to
confirm that they live on a smaller lot which I do and yes I do believe that that is part of the issue that we have on our street with all of this runoff. So much so that I have spoken to the water department in Edison multiple
times and they have told me that that people are plugging in and adding more and more to the street. There's runoff directly into the street instead of into yards and yes it is an untenable situation and it's unsafe.
Is it >> it's so much so that they have to un man they have to take off the manhole cover to the sewer to have it spring up at the top of Highland whenever there is flooding. That's how much runoff water there is in
the area. >> Just to clarify something, you live at 178. That's the same as the first witness who testified, gentlemen. Okay. I just wanted to make sure I had the correct address. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you very much. Uh, next resident within 200 ft of sub site wanting to be
heard. >> Hi, name is Sylvio Ter. >> Could you could you raise your right hand, please? Do you swear affirm the testimony you give tonight will be the truth? >> Uh, I do. Okay. >> Name and address, please. Thank you. >> Uh, Sylvio Ter, and I own a couple of
properties in that area. 152 Highland and 230 Washington. >> T A R A N D A. Um I mainly want to um review a couple things and it may be
repeating but I want to emphasize certain points. Um I know we talked about the extra lock coverage and the drainage. Um I know that roof coverage
um we're increasing basically we're taking a house that is the an existing house that may have a a a lot coverage of how much does the existing house have? You probably have the exact number. 2,882 square feet
>> is the footprint >> the total imper total impervious on that property. >> It's the total that includes the driveways >> does. Okay. Yeah. And walkways. Yes. >> Okay. So, it used to be that and I don't
know if the the zoning ordinance or engineering is the same. If you increased the house the coverage by 500 square feet on the roof, you'd have to put an entire drywall system onto the property. There was a reason why that
was in place. I don't know if it's in place still, but in this particular case, it would be very important because there is a drainage issue on that street. Um as the other issue is um your
numbers as far as how many how many lots are undersized is a little misleading because most of those undersized lots are not on Washington Avenue. They're on Highland and they're on Lexington.
Washington has some beautiful lots, some bigger than 100 by 100. and you're taking you are going to change the character there of the neighborhood by adding two houses on one lot. Uh, and I
know the other person spoke and said there were plenty of people who were willing to buy it and renovate the house and add to it as a single family home. Um, this is not a hardship because they need another house for their parents to
live in. This is just to a developer trying to subdivide some lots, build some speck houses, and make some money. And I don't think that that should be taken into consideration when you're asking for a variance to create
nonconforming lots. >> I just had a quick question. You had 152 Highland. What was the other property? >> 230 Washington. They are both undersized. And that's those blocks. Those blocks are all undersized. [clears throat]
>> Thank you. I just >> Thank you very much. Anyone else within 200 ft of civic site want to be heard? Anyone from outside 200 feet want to be heard? >> Last call. Raise your right hand, please. Do you swear affirm the testimony give the
truth? >> I affirm. >> Okay. Could you state your name and address for the record please? >> Charles Nat neu e a dt speak to the mic. >> Okay. Um I lived on Highland Avenue now
for uh 26 years. Unfortunately, the first 10 years I lived in an undersized lot on the corner of uh of Minnola and uh and Highland. It was uh 183 Highland. Um, fortunately, and I mean, uh, the
undersized lots of Highland Avenue to go ahead and to try to bring a proof from there that we should continue this terrible thing is is terrible. Um, I couldn't wait to to go ahead and get into a regular size lot um, with a house
that would be big enough to be able to live in. to go ahead and to contemplate that we're going to go ahead and go backwards and try to build more of these undersized lots um and to move this this this terrible thing that we have on Highland. I don't drive home on
Highland. I always drive up either Washington or Lexington to get home um because of the parking and because of the congestion. Um it it's it I find it very bothersome that we're that we're thinking of making things worse instead
of making things better. Um I also take issue the sewage on someone had had mentioned is been a problem on Highland Avenue for since since I've been there. um basements, flooding and and the and
the drainage. The closest Nobody mentioned that the the rainwater sewer the closest rainwater sore um you know to my house is is more than a block away. Uh the closest rainwater sore to this property that they're talking about is got to be a block and a half away.
The net closest sore is down on Highland and Leslie or back up on Marshall. Um, it's it's it's really it it's really absurd to consider adding a drop more of water to this area that has such a high
water table. Um, and I hope that the that the board will uh will listen listen to our our pleas and thank you for your attention. >> Thank you very much, sir. And thank you for coming out. >> I just have a question for Mr. S. Sir, if you wouldn't mind. >> It's not for him. It's for Mr. Dupont in response to something he said. The
reason we're looking at Highland is because municipal land use law and as your expertise in planning, you have to look at the lots within 200 ft as to the nature and character of the relief we're seeking. Correct. >> That's correct.
>> And we're not impacting sewage or water on Highland and nothing was pointed out by the township engineer that anything we're proposing would impact water or drainage on Highland. Correct. >> That is correct. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Good evening. >> Do you swear affirm the testimony you
give tonight will be the truth? >> I do. >> Can you state your name and address for the record, please? >> Abraham Gruber, G R U B- E R161 Highland. And I oppose this uh request because everyone's speaking about the runoff and outside water. I can speak to my house
that's just right behind the property and after the rain today, I'm looking at 2 and a half inches of water. And it's not coming from the ground. It's coming in from the windows cuz there's nowhere for the water to go. So, it's coming back from behind the property and it's just going out to the street and whatever crack or window or door it
comes open. It's myself and the houses adjacent as well um to the properties that I'm I know for a fact that we always share our dehumidifiers because we got to deal with this and there's nothing we can do unless we dig up the whole thing and put in French drains and whatnot. So, there is an issue with the
runoff just even by the the coverage of the property. This just has nowhere to go. Thank you very much. >> Just a quick question, sir. You're at um lot 4601 161 Highland. >> That's correct. >> And your lot's also 50 by 100, correct?
>> That's correct. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. Anyone else outside of 200 ft wanting to be heard? >> Last call. >> Um we've David Kowitz last name. >> Sir, you have to speak. You're speaking to the mic. >> Could you just raise your right hand first? Do you do you swear or affirm the
testimony we give tonight will be the truth? >> Yes, I affirm. >> Yeah. I'm sorry. Can you say your name address, please? >> David Kowitz, 83 Marshall Drive. I I t K O W I T. >> You speak into the microphone. >> Yes. I don't want to rehash. I can
confirm the drainage issues. I understand what the engineering is. As we all know in life, we see things and we know what engineering says technically. Uh the drainage issues are there. There's underground streams through this neighborhood. It's been known as Twin Brooks for a reason
back in the day. Um, one thing I do want to address is the parking issue and the congestion. Before the school started construction, as my neighbor has pointed out down the block, even before this construction started, Marshall John Marshall School does not have enough
parking for the staff. They are spilling over into Marshall Drive, Highland Avenue, uh, Washington Avenue. Um, we [clears throat] love our teachers, so we don't say nothing. But it is a situation
and, uh, so I don't want to take any more time, but that's the issue for now. >> Thank you very much, sir. Anyone else within 200 outside 200 ft want to be heard? Sir, please approach. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you give to will be the truth? >> Yes. >> Can you say your name and address of the
record, please? >> Assafu, 17ill Road. Saf last name. S H M U L. Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. Tonight,
you heard from professionals that paint the beautiful picture and uh I was in your position and and they're paid to do what they do and they do a great job. However, you also heard tonight from neighbors about their neighborhood. I can almost guarantee you these
professionals have yet to sit to be at that neighborhood and see two of the issues that have come up tonight. drainage and overpopulation or too much too many parking spots being taken. So, what I
ask of you tonight is when you make a decision on how this neighborhood will be shaped with these two houses. While I'm sure they're going to be beautiful houses, consider the the what you heard tonight from the members of the neighborhood. I used to live on W 40 at Washington
Avenue. I know what it's like. I know the drainage issues and I know about the congestion and and the over uh too many cars on the roads. Thank you for your time. >> Thank you very much. Anyone else from outside 200 ft sub want to be heard? Final call. Can I get a motion to close
public portion? >> Motion to close public portion. >> Second. >> Motion made by Vice Chairman Gorman, second by Mr. Patel. All in favor signify by saying I. >> I. Those nay. The eyes have it. Public portion is now closed. Um Mr. Mr. Barlo, would you like to give a summation? Um, also just reminding you
that uh we do have uh only five board members present this evening >> if you'd like to take a few minutes to to discuss with your client. It's your to [snorts] your case council. >> And I I certainly appreciate that. I I wasn't aware that parking was going to become an issue. So, I have another
exhibit I would like to present to the board if I may. >> Okay. See, these are one, two, three, four, five pages. They're photographs. A street that I assume you'll identify. We'll mark this as exhibit A3.
Thank you. You marked these at a as A3. I would just um identify them for the board as a series of five photographs. Um it was brought up. I I've been to this property at least four times. I've been there three times. >> I'm I'm sorry to interrupt you. Could
you tell us which what streets we're looking at here? >> This is Washington. If you on the top first picture, you see the tree on the right hand side and your driveway. There's a branch on the front lawn. That's the driveway for 194
Washington, the applicant's property. This picture was taken at 6:45 yesterday. >> Sorry, am PM. >> 6:45 p.m., excuse me. Sure. >> Um, and the second photograph just shows a little closer. The third photograph, again, just getting closer. You still
see the driveway and that branch on the front lawn of the property. And then pictures four and five, the trees you see on the left hand side are again 194 Washington. Um, showing
the parking at 6:45 when I would presume everyone is probably home from work. Um, also at least in my office in Edison, there were torrential downpours yesterday. It hailed in certain parts of Edison. As I said, this was at 6:45
yesterday. It's dry as anything in terms of drainage. So, again, um I I I give these pictures to the board um just to address some of the comments that were made by >> [clears throat] >> um members of the public. Um
but again, we we've heard a lot and I realize there's only five members that could vote tonight. So, if you're if you will indulge me and give me a five minute adjourment to let me speak to my clients and see if they wish to proceed to a vote tonight or carry it. >> Absolutely. Thank you so much. All
right. So, we're going to take a 5m minute recess. board will return to session. Mr. Barlor, >> thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I I presented the board with another exhibit. I think we're up to a
five four five. >> I'm checking. I'm sorry. A4 >> A4. Um, and Mr. Dupont, if you could just identify for the record what what that exhibit entails and why it was prepared. This is once again a color exhibit extending
farther out than 200 ft of the surrounding neighborhood. and it identifies one family conforming lots, one family non-conforming lots, two family non-conforming lots, three family non-conforming lots, and a five unit non-conforming lot.
>> Okay. And we've heard some testimony this evening from people within and without outside the 200t area. And of the 85 properties in the expan expanded RB comparison, um 70 of the 85 lots don't conform to
size. Correct. >> That's correct. >> And it looks like there's uh 39 non-conforming one families, 22 non-conforming two families, six non-conforming three families, and one non-conforming five unit. Correct.
>> That is correct. >> Okay. And again, based on this exhibit, now we've expanded beyond the 200 ft, would you uh does that bolster your testimony that you gave us earlier that you believe that the board could grant the relief sought? Um uh based on the
proofs you had submitted, >> it certainly does. >> Okay. I don't have any further and based on the fact that the board only has five voting members um instead of seven. I I would ask the board carry the meeting um
with no further notice. We'll have the transcript prepared and and submitted to the board secretary so that any members who aren't here can review the transcript or the or the listen to it if that's their pleasure. Mr. Chairman. >> Okay. Madam Secretary,
>> um we can offer the September 22nd agenda. >> First submission. >> There's not going to be any resubmissions. >> Understood. um our August August 25th agenda, we only have one and it's pretty jammed packed.
>> Um that's up to you, Chair. >> But it is it is for vote only. So, as long as there's no more testimony and no more uh exhibits, it's just for vote only. >> If if it turns out we're going to do that, I'll notify the board secondary. That's fine. >> And move move it to a
>> to the 22nd. Okay. >> Okay. >> All right. That works. >> Thank you. >> Okay. All right. So, August 25th. >> August 25th. >> Okay. All right. So, for anyone here present, for anyone listening at home, this case will be carried to Tuesday, August 25th, 2026 with a meeting
beginning at 7:00 p.m. here in council chambers. If you received a notice, you will not receive another notice. This will serve as your notice. This case will resume. It will be carried till Tuesday, August 25th, 2026. Meeting beginning at 7 p.m. here in council chambers. Uh, thank you, Mr. Barlo, Mr.
Dupont, and thank you members of the public for coming out. Have a very good evening, safe home. I hope it is not raining out. Um, >> appreciate the board again as always listening to everything. >> Thank you so much. All right, we'll uh take give a minute, let the next case set up and we'll move right along.
>> Rachel, you have all the >> I'm sure. >> Yep, I have all the Thank you so much. >> Okay, go ahead. a torrential raintorm when it needed. >> Madam Secretary, next case on the agenda, please. Case number Z10 2026 Middle Sex Water at
83 Fair View A and 300 Cedar Lane. Applicant is seeking preliminary and final site plan with bulk and use variances to construct a new 58,360 foot building, a new silo for water treatment and other upgrades to comply with federal requirements. The following
standards have not been met in accordance with the master plan. Max building height required is three stories. proposed is a twostory. Accessory building height required is 45 ft. Proposed is 55 ft. Minimum accessory sideyard required is 40 ft. Proposed is
34 ft. Affected properties located in the LI zone designated as block number 888.01 lot number one and block number 3.04 lot number 11 on the Edison Township tax map. All noticing paperwork is in order.
>> Good evening, Mr. Scholmic. Good evening, Chairman. Richard Skolnick on behalf of the applicant, Middle Sex Water Company. As mentioned, we're here for site plan approval. And the core purpose of the application is to make drinking water more safe for the public
and to meet new federal and state standards concerning what are commonly known as PAS or forever chemicals. You're going to hear from my client Brian Carr, who's the senior director of engineering at Middle Sex Water, as to why the company is required to comply
with new regulations and why it's required to build the new facilities at this location. We're in the LI zone. We're permitted use in the zone. We've taken a careful look at the review letters, both the planning and engineering letters. We don't have any
issues uh complying with what's sought or what's mentioned in those letters. We're here at the zoning board because we have D6 height variances for a proposed 58,000 square ft building and a
separate structure which we're going to call a silo. Uh that also exceeds the height by more than 10%. 45 ft permitted in the zone. We're at 55 ft for both of those structures. We noticed for a C
variance for a building setback, but that's an existing structure on the site that's not being changed at all. The location is identified as block 888.01, lot 01, which is 83 Fair View Avenue,
and that's the existing treatment plant. Chairman, I'm going to call that the CJO. That stands for Carl J. Olsen Treatment Plant. Also at issue tonight is one other parcel in Edison, block 3.04, lot 7.
That's 300 Cedar Lane. There's a big warehouse on that property and we're going to create a secondary means of access through that warehouse property. I'm going to call that the SegMe property. And again, that's a fully
developed warehouse. We want to create a new entry road for the new trucks that are going to be coming for the new facilities. Uh we were in Highland Park last night because part of that new entry road sort
of snakes through Highland Park uh on a couple of lots that are owned by my client and Ruters. And we did receive approval just last night from the Highland Park Board of Adjustment for the entry road. Um, we have that new
building, 58,000 square feet. We have a new silo. We have some storm water detention facilities. We have 50 new parking spaces, no new parking uh variances at all. You're going to hear from our experts of course on why we
need that 55 ft for the new building and silo. We're going to hear for the uh we're going to hear from them on the technical reasons for the height of the structures. The the new structures are located on this 25 acre parcel uh quite
large. We have train tracks bordering the property separating us from residences. We have the Segmi warehouse. Of course, that's another very significant buffer. And the closest residential structure on Fair View Avenue is approximately 650 ft, two
football fields away from the proposed silo. Chairman, I'm going to get started with Brian Carr from Middle Sex Water. I have Dave Tanzy, our civil engineer. We may have some very brief traffic testimony uh just talking about that entry road and why two means of access
are uh safe and appropriate and then I'll wrap up with the planner Lauraai Totten. Going to try to move as uh quickly as we can but cover what we need to. >> Thank you very much. Could you raise your right hand? Do you swear or affirm the testimony you give tonight will be
the truth? >> I do. >> Say your name and address for the record, please. >> Brian Carr. B R I A N C A R R My address is 90 Church Hill Boulevard, New Egypt. >> Brian, uh we did we swear, man. We
swear, man. Right. Okay. Brian, what's your position and your job responsibilities with uh Middle Sex Water? >> I am the vice president of engineering for Middle Sex Water Company, New Jersey division. I am in charge of the engineering department at at Middle Sex Water Company. >> And you're in charge of the project
that's in front of the board tonight? Yes, I am. >> And you've been with Middle Sex for a while? >> I've been with Middle Sex for 16 years. >> And you're familiar with its operations and so on? >> Yes. >> Okay. Could you uh give a little background on the project? How did we end up here and what what's going on out
there uh right now at the plant and and what's required and and and why are we moving forward with the proposal? >> Sure. Briefly to understand, the CJO plant is our primary drinking water plant for the system. It provides 75% of the drinking water for our system, our residential customers and our wholesale
customers, which includes much of Edison on a retail basis and the remainder on a on a wholesale basis. Water is pumped from the DNR canal in New Brunswick to the plant in Edison. The water from them has a POS level that is below the
current New Jersey state levels of 13 parts per trillion for PIO and POS. However, the federal government passed laws saying that the new level shall be four parts per trillion. The water in the DNR canal tends to be between two and six parts per trillion. Six being
clearly greater than four. We are required to install treatment to avoid drinking water violations. We have gone through a extensive process of reviewing different treatment techniques for this POS except
for finding in our water evaluating six different techniques. The one that was selected based on performance of our pilot study was granular activated carbon. In order to minimize the footprint and minimize the cost of this new building rather than using pressure
vessels, gravity contacttors were selected for their smaller footprint and we are here to put that building before the board. We also have a new pump station which is necessary because we have to pump the water again because of the new conttors. We have the new
silo for pack because it is also effective at removing POS and is able to be constructed much faster than the main plant. So we will be treating for POS much quicker with the pack system and that is those are the main improvements we have here.
>> Okay. So there's some uh federal and state regulations dealing with this PAS or forever chemicals. Yes. >> Uh and uh stricter standards have come into play. >> Yes. the federal the federal federal standard is significantly stricter. >> Okay. And there's certain deadlines that
the federal government has put out. Can you talk about those for a second? >> The compliance for PIOS below four parts per trillion has to be in place by April of 2029. >> So right now we're on a on a planning schedule in order to be able to do it.
Obviously it's taken a a a time period to design and get in front of the board and select the technology. Yes, we started in 2024 with this project once once the federal laws were finalized and have and have been in design since. >> Okay. And there was an extensive period
of val of evaluating options. Uh I take it with your company and its various consultants. >> Yes, we did a one-year pilot study using treated water from the plant to see how effective the addition of the new treatment would be. and the technology
that you selected, it's going to help with uh the PAS or forever chemicals. There's also other benefits from the technology in terms of improving drinking water. Can you talk to the board about that? >> GAC as well as part the powder activated
carbon PAC is a non discriminatory absorber of things in the water. It is happy to absorb POS as well as other things. Prior to these laws for PAS, we've been using powder activated carbon at the plant to address taste and
odor issues, any upsets in the DNR canal. For example, if someone has spilled two gallons of diesel fuel into the into the canal by accident and it got into our plant, we can neutralize it with the motor activated carbon. So, we have we have those available for our use. And it is it will take out uh often
it'll take out pharmaceuticals and all the endocin disruptors that you've se you've heard of. It will not to seek them out. It says there's a spot for you and it it will ab absorb it. >> So the [clears throat] new system in in sort of simplistic terms is going to uh
create cleaner and safer water for the customers that your company serves. Yes, there will be fewer things other than water and things we put in on purpose to be delivered to the customers >> and and the uh technology and the cleaner water has been mandated by the
federal government in this circumstance. >> Yes, they have. >> Okay. Uh in in addition to building the new treatment, uh Middle Sex has decided to come in front of the board uh with a secondary means of access. Can you talk
about that? >> The treatment plant currently has a single access point down Fairview Avenue, which is has been the case since it was built in 1969. The residents have to deal with our truck traffic, our chemical deliveries,
our indivi and all the other items that arrive at the plant. With this new POS building, we will be experiencing uh media change outs on a roughly yearly basis per contactctor. We have 10 contactctors planned. So roughly roughly one a month as we stagger them out. The
additional truck traffic was going to be about 20 trucks for for a oneweek period every six weeks or so. We did not feel it was necessary or a good idea to increase the truck traffic on a residential street. If you've been to
the area down off Suttons and down Fairview, it's not a very well suited area for large trucks. So, we wanted to have a second access point as well for safety purposes. Having a single access point to our plant should anything happen on Fair View Avenue and we could
no longer access the plant through Fairview Avenue, it put the production of that site in jeopardy. So, uh, Middle Sex Water was able to get consent letters and it's working on formal easement agreements with the owner of
that Segmi warehouse and Ruters to create a second access. >> Yes, we have we have commitment letters like you spoke. We had to have them for the application to Highland Park and we are working with Ruters. They expect to have us on their fall board meeting. We're working with the segment warehouse
folks to to use the same easement that Ruters will be using to get to their property that we were sharing the easement to get our access road installed. >> Okay. And the and the commitment is that the new trucks that will uh be servicing the new technology will not be on Fair
View, but will go through the secondary access on uh SEG through Ruters and and we'll be talking about this of course with the engineer, but uh so there's sort of two goals. Clean the water and find a way uh for the trucks not to use
Fair View and get that safer secondary access. Yes, that is that is the plan. >> Anything else, sir? >> Don't think so. >> Okay. Chairman, >> does the board have any questions for Mr. Carr?
>> Seeing none. Thank you very much. >> Going to open it to the public. >> No, we'll go to the public at the end. >> Okay. Thank you. Yes. >> Okay. >> We're going to call Dave Tanzy, a civil engineer. You raise your right hand, please. Do you swear affirm the testimony you give
tonight will be the truth? >> Can you say your name and address for the record, please? >> David Tanzy, 110 Field Crest Avenue, Edison, New Jersey. Tanzy T as in Tom Zi. First name David. >> And uh who do you work for and what's your position with uh the company?
>> I work for CDM Smith. Uh my current position is senior project manager and also senior vice president. >> And this I believe it's your first time appearing before the board. >> First time appearing before this board. >> Okay. So if you could please give us the benefit of your background and qualifications. >> I graduated with a bachelor's of civil
engineering from Stevens Institute of Technology and a master's in environmental engineering from also from Stevens Institute of Technology. I'm a licensed professional engineer in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, New York, and Massachusetts. I've been practicing engineering where I've been with CDM Smith since um for a little over 30
years. >> And your license and current excuse me, your license is current and good standing. >> Sir, >> we'll accept you. May proceed. Thank you. >> Y Dave, you want to go through the layout? Uh you want to use the boards? Up to you.
>> Yeah, I think the board has our our packets. >> Okay. >> Right. Um I'll just go >> do you have our packet there? >> Yes, we do. It >> was a pretty thick plan. >> Yeah, I know. Thankfully the board secretary left it here so we have to all carry it all in. >> I think there's uh 58 drawings there.
>> Um I'll go through big picture and then if we have questions I get into a little more detail. Um as Mr. Cart indicated our project consist of um couple main components uh but purpose is to treat uh water uh that the that the dream plant currently has. Uh couple different components of the project. There's a
main PAS treatment facility which will contain treatment equipment, offices and storage. There'll be a small um pump station to provide backwash water to the new granular activated carbon or GAC treatment facility. There'll be a new
backwash clarifier installed. The treatment plant currently has two clarifiers. A third one will be installed as part of this project. There'll be a fourth emergency electrical generator installed. Currently, there's three generators on site, so a fourth is proposed as part of this project. Mr. car had mentioned that
there's a uh powdered activated carbon or pack silo that's also being proposed to be installed as part of this project. There'll be storm water management facilities, new roadways, parkin uh lights, uh underground utilities, and then lastly, as Mr. Carr indicated, there'll be a new access road from the
seg warehouse property to allow large trucks to be deliver the GAC media to the to the site. Uh those are the main um components of of the project. Uh the main PAS treatment facility would be located at the rear of the existing plant property um far from the Fair View
Avenue entrance. That's a main entrance to the CGO treatment plant. The PAS treatment facility which is new will be the largest of the buildings proposed. Uh total area of about 58,000 square ft on a square footage basis. About 85% of that is dedicated to the treatment
equipment and processes with the remainder of that area being utilized for personnel and storage space. Uh main treatment facility has a total height of about 58 and a half ft from the uh lowest existing grade elevation. Uh that height
is required to accommodate the very deep GAC treatment contacttors required for POS treatment at the facility. Uh from an architectural standpoint, uh the POS treatment facility is intended to match the existing building facade on the site. There's two other main facilities
on the site. An ozone facility which was constructed uh in 2021 and the main treatment facility which was originally constructed in 1969 and then expanded in the late 1990s. Mentioned there'll be 50 new parking spaces on on site. Um the second
facility is that pack silo powdered activated activated carbon uh silo. Uh that silo will include storage and equipment that'll feed product into the water to improve the water quality and to also [clears throat] remove PAS. Uh the silo is located um adjacent to um an
existing pack feed system at the treatment plant. So the the location of the new pack silo was situated um in the same area as the existing um system which is located indoors. Uh that's to allow free ease of truck access and loading and unloading of the media into
the the silo. The silo is required to be at the height of 55 ft due to the amount of storage required to maintain about a twoe inventory or supply uh of of the dry product that being the powdered activated carbon. And that silo structure again is replaced in an
existing pack system that is ending its um useful life at the uh at the treatment plant. Uh with part of that silo will be screening and in front of it consisting of a wall to screen um to improve the aesthetics of of the silo. Uh and then just get into a little
detail. The final piece of the project is the existing roadway off Cedar Lane will be repurposed to a new access road uh to allow um trucks that are delivering this GAC media into the facility. As Mr. Carr indicated, uh
we're looking about 20 trucks every six weeks to deliver media, new media, and then um remove the old media and truck it away for um eventual disposal. >> David, when when you say media, what do you what do you mean by that? The media is the GAC, the granular activated
carbon, the product that's actually treated the PAS in the water. >> Okay. So that's the the the carbon pulling the chemicals out in in lay person's terms, >> correct? Yeah. We have millions of pounds of carbon in these um contactors.
Uh the carbon gets exhausted and needs to be replaced. In order to replace it, you have to remove it, truck it away, and then bring in new carbon uh and place them into the new into the existing contacttors. >> And again, as Mr. Cart And again, uh the the uh the concept is
that the trucks that are going to bring the carbon in and out, they're not going to be on Fair View. They're going to come through the the Seg building, sort of snake through Rutgers and Highland Park, and then come back in so that they're screened and shielded. >> That's correct. >> Okay.
>> Okay. Just continuing with um just some of the existing structures that are out there. There's an existent backwash storage tank on site which is um about 60 ft high. Uh there's also an existing 10 million gallon storage tank that is used to um to obtain um portable or
drinkable uh water. Um that's about 45 feet high. Uh there's two main buildings out there. The ozone building which I mentioned earlier is about 24 feet high and the main control building is about 24 feet high. Our new PAS building has a um height of about 55 feet. Um again,
square footage is about 40,000 uh square feet. The distance from the south side of the building uh to the southern property line. Um this is located um across the railroad tracks is about 236 ft and to the nearest house about 250
ft. You want to grab the aerial to show the board just so we can uh get them >> and we'll mark that. >> We're going to mark this as A1 aerial. Okay. A1 is the aerial. >> Can we go from here?
>> Yeah. Um, >> can I take this bike out? >> Yes. >> If you can't see this, let me know and I'll come closer. existing treatment facility is here. That's that 10 million gallon storage tank. Um their existing uh ozone
facility is here. The existing control building and plant is here. The new PAS facility is here. That's at 39,000 square ft. Uh clarifier number three is located to the north of new PAS building. Uh the washwater pump station, a small washwater pump station located
to the east of the new POS facility. Uh that pack silo that we're talking about is located to the east of the existing uh building. Um that's about 636 ft from the property line from um to to
the east of it. And that pack silo is located about 375 ft to the property line on the on the south side. >> The south side has the railroad tracks there. >> Yep. Railroad tracks. This is Amtrak and um New Jersey Transit runs the northeast
corridor line through here. Uh so there are houses uh to the south of those railroad tracks. So you have houses, you have the railroad tracks, you have um trees, a fence, and then the new the existing treatment facility and then
this new POS facility located over over here. >> Okay. And Dave, could you just uh run your hand across the municipal borderline and ident and then the seg property too? So everybody's oriented. >> Sure. Uh Highland Park in Edison
order here. This is that segment warehouse constructed um I think four or five years ago is here. This is uh Cedar Lane. Uh that new access road is will be located here going off to the segment property and Cedar Lane. So, truck
traffic will come down Cedar Lane, uh, make a right or actually make a left off Cedar Lane into the private driveway of Segway property, enter this access road and deliver that GAC media to this new PAS facility. Um, circulate around the PAS facility and then leave through that
same access road out to Cedar Lane and eventually make its way up to 87. This new access road, uh, we're repurposing an existing railroad embankment. There's an existing railroad embankment from Camp Kilmer um from the World War II era. Um there's existing
embankment there and we're essentially repurposing that embankment to a a new access road for truck traffic. Um that access road is currently gravel. It will become paved and then access road is currently used by Ruckers University to access uh two 24-in twin um corrugated
storm sewers that convey storm water flow from the north property to south of that embankment. So Rucker's vehicles and construction equipment currently utilize that access road and again it'll be repurposed to a um new
access road for our treatment plant. >> [clears throat] >> Okay. Um >> any questions? >> Uh you can proceed then we'll do questions at the end of your testimony. >> Yeah. Okay. Um no issues with the storm
water comments in Mr. Carly's report. >> No, we take no exceptions to those comments in the July 17th report. Um uh no issues with any of the comments on uh sanitary sewer utilities in the report?
>> No, no concerns with that either. >> Okay. We obviously have um some lighting on the new road. Any issues with the the comments in the report on that? >> No, no issues with those. >> Okay. Talk briefly about tree removal.
>> Uh tree removal on the Edison property. A total of 96 trees are planned to be removed within Edison. Um, majority of those, 76 of those are greater than 4 in but less than 16 in. And the rest are uh
between 18 in and 29 in. Uh, with that we'll be planting 128 new trees and shrubs and landscaping on the CGO treatment plant property. >> Um, >> as well as for um new trees in front of the pack silo.
>> Okay. Uh let's just come back to the height of the uh buildings um uh and the and the variance relief the the one building on the that we noticed for the setbacks. That's an existing structure. We're not changing it. So, you know, we
were careful to notice for it, but nothing really happening to that existing unchanged condition. Correct. >> There's no work taking place on that. Correct. >> Okay. So, the only two other variances are for the height of the silo, the proposed silo. You want to get the um
site plan and and we'll show the board the >> um >> we could do the rendering. Okay. Uh we're going to call this uh A2 the silo
rendering. >> Dave, you offered some uh brief testimony. I want you to just flesh it out for a minute. We're we're at 55 feet approximately. 45 feet. What what's driving the need for that extra 10 feet and the
overall height on the silo? >> Sure. That's that. Wait till everyone gets a copy of the aerial >> that this uh this view is from Fairview Avenue at the entrance to the CGO treatment plant. There's an existing slide gate um chain link fence there.
So, this is a view from that chain link fence. Okay. >> And this is a photo simulation prepared by your office and under your direction. Yes sir. >> Okay. And the the silo is simulated. Uh chairman, I'm sure you you saw the the cell tower applications that were
popular years ago. Uh so this is a simulation uh using um technology to to to place it in there. >> Correct. >> Okay. >> So I just want to clarify. So this is a otherwise real photo but with the silo added in >> imposed. Correct.
>> We're going to call it a photo simulation of silo. The the silo is shown in white sort of in the middle above the the the tree in the center. Uh to the left of that is the existing backwash storage tank. Um that pack silo
has a proposed height of 55 ft which is taller than the um maximum height allowed of of of 45 ft. Uh purpose of that silo again is to hold this powder activated carbon um media to treat PAS
in in the water. Um the goal is for for that pack silo um in in terms of the the height um not to overdo truck access on that road delivering that pack media. So
the size of that silo of 55 ft high was selected to minimize truck traffic going down Fairview Avenue. Uh we're looking at delivery of pack media depending on water quality conditions and flow of about once every um 2 weeks. If we're
reducing that silo height um you know the reduction in height will drive up uh deliveries uh to get to a point where the water company may not be comfortable uh going that short period of time in between deliveries. So really the the height of that silo is driven by the
ability to get pack delivered in a timely fashion. >> Okay. And so you know it's a balancing act. uh to control the truck traffic and have enough uh materials to run the operation. Uh a design issue there, >> correct? >> Okay. And and uh you mentioned that the
silo is uh over 600 ft from the nearest property line. >> They did. >> So um it's uh it could be seen if you're driving along Fair View, but it's really going to be in the horizon. >> It'd be in the horizon. is um over about
650 uh feet to the the fence to the to the silo shown in the figure. >> Okay. And we have the proposed building. Can you just talk a little bit more about uh why uh Middle Sex Water is seeking the height variance on the on
the larger structure? Sure. Where that is. Maybe you want to just point that out on the aerial again. >> Sure. The the PIOS building is located It's located in the center bottom. This large building u about 300 feet uh long.
Uh there's a couple components of it. Uh the GAC media will sit in really about 75% of it. And this small notch out here is a finished water pump station. There'll be some administrative offices um to the to the west side of that finished water pump station. But the majority of that building will contain
these GAC contactors or really big swimming pools with this GAC media in it. um that swim pool or contacttors has a depth of about 30 feet. There's about 15 feet of GAC media in that. So the depth of those contacttors is really
driving the overall height of the building from a hydraulic standpoint. Um flow from those GAC conttors flows by gravity to that new washwater pump station. So the height is a function of another
balancing act of um depth of excavation to allow um to minimize excavation and to uh allow water to flow from the GVC contacttors to the new finish water pump station by gravity >> in that building. It's it's 10 ft over what's permitted, but it's on the other
side of the Amtrak New Jersey Transit train line. So there's, you know, the the buffer of the of the train line in between >> about 250 ft to the nearest building from the south side of the new FIFA building. >> So almost a football field away uh with
the train tracks in between. >> Yes. >> Okay. Um anything else, sir? >> I have nothing else. >> No. Chairman, again, uh we read the 17page review letter. Uh no issues. We'll have to have some discussion on uh
tree placement and buffer. Obviously, that's the kind of detail we feel we can uh work out. >> Mr. Carly, >> it's not 20 pages. The uh I believe Mr. Tanzy's testimony really uh did touch ba touch uh all the bases on my report,
which as Mr. Skolnick relates is uh lengthy uh but it refineses the design. It doesn't change the design that Mr. Tany presents to the board tonight. So uh the board can have confidence that the plans that are in front of it are essentially the plans that will be
built. Uh Mr. Skolnick, Mr. Tanzy, am I uh misspeaking? >> You're not. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> Thank you, Mr. Carly. Does the board have any questions for Mr. Tanzy? >> None. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you, >> chairman. I have a traffic engineer
here, but I'm I'm going to hold him to see what the board questioning and the public questioning is. Uh he would just essentially say that a second means of access uh is is going to be helpful. Uh and uh is appropriate from an
engineering uh standpoint. Uh but I'll I'll hold him. I don't need him for my proofs and we'll see where that goes if that's okay. >> That's fine. >> Okay. Okay, I'm going to call my planner, Lauraai Totten. >> Do you want me to take >> Do you swear or affirm the testimony you
give will be the truth? >> I do. >> Say your name, address for the record, please. >> Laura Tatton, L O R A L I. T is in Tom. O T T E N. 100 Reich Drive, Milstone Township, New Jersey, Crest Engineering Associates, Inc.
>> Miss Totten, you have appeared before the board prior. If you could just give us a brief summary of your background, qualifications. >> Yes, I graduated from Lehigh University with a bachelor of science in 1977. I secured my professional engineering license in 1983 and my professional
planning license in 1986. And I have been testifying as a planner for 40 years. Um, and >> your license are current and good standing. >> Good standing. Excuse me. >> License is current in good standing. >> Yes, it is. >> You may proceed. Great. Thank you so much. >> Thank you. M >> T, you've you've you've looked at the
variances in light of uh the ordinances in light of the fact that we're a permitted use. You've looked at the master plan. Can you give the board uh the benefit of your analysis with the statutory criteria that's applicable for height variances?
>> Yes. With regard to height variances, uh we have two, the silo and the um principal building for PIFA. They're both about 55 ft tall. Uh so the proposed heights are dictated, as you
just heard, by Mr. Tanzy and Mr. Carr, by the water treatment process itself. It's a balancing act, as was stated. the the treatment vessels and associated equipment require that vertical clearance as a matter of engineering
necessity. Uh and the silo must be as tall as it is to to function properly and to provide the right time frame in between deliveries to minimize trucks and and provide adequate uh pack. The uh
compliance with the state mandatory state and federal PAS drinking standards serves the public health safety and general welfare as it is an inherently beneficial use. Um and it the uh we are
advancing the goal of the uh land use law to encourage municipal action to guide the appropriate use for development of all lands in the state in a manner which will promote public health, safety and morals and general
welfare which I think this pack uh I mean sorry this POS uh building and silo will do and the height is required to do that. The additional height will not go against the purpose of the height
limitation or be out of character with the site's existing previously approved industrial improvements. As noted, it's 100. It's a 25 acre site. Uh the site's already industrial. There is uh
structures that are taller um 60 feet as you heard than the proposed structures. Um and that is the positive criteria. With regard to the negative criteria, there is no substantial detriment to the
public good. These uh both facilities are located at least 600 ft away. The silo is actually 10 times as height away from the residence on Fairview and uh six or seven time five times as height
from the residences on the other side of the railroad tracks. uh so that the mass of the of the silo and the building will not be apparent which is what the height restrictions are for to keep keep it from looking too large if it's too close
to the property line. Uh also there will be no shadows or anything that will extend over to the property lines on this. So it does not impact the air, light and uh light, air and space.
>> Open air, light and open space I think is the term of art. >> Yes. Uh with regard to the intent and purpose of the um LI zone plan um because the underlying use is water quality um and is already a recognized
permitted use. It is an inherently beneficial use. The height setback relief is confined to accommodating the mandated treatment upgrade rather than expanding or changing the use itself. And I think that is the end of oh and
and as I say stated before the purposes of open space light and air as well as safety by virtue of distance are maintained. So the benefits of granting the height variance outweigh the detriments of any part of the uh of of
this because we're providing drinking safe drinking water for the public. Lauraai, we looked at the uh a key case called Graasso, and that case talks about whether the proposal is going to be uh out of place in the neighborhood
or degrade the appearance of the neighborhood or blocking street views or the skyline. Uh do we have anything like that here? >> We do not. that the both of the buildings and structures that exceed the height are far from both residential
areas and the existing Fair View Avenue. Uh they blend into, as you could see from that photo, the horizon of the rest of the existing industrial facility, which has been there since parts of it since 1969 and as late as uh 2021. So
the the public is used to looking at that scape as they come down Fairview. >> Uh we obviously have the Amtrak uh New Jersey Transit line that provides an existing buffer with both trees and the train line itself.
>> That is correct. There is an existing buffer provided by that and Amtrak itself is a fairly industrial looking facility itself. uh uh the silo that's over 600 feet or two football fields away from the closest property line.
>> That is correct. >> Uh and we also took a look at some buffering requirements. Uh I think Mr. Carly had some comments on that. There are some buffering standards. We we can work with the board staff on uh on tree
plate I'm sorry on tree placement. Uh uh no problem with that given the scope of the project to uh put uh additional trees in appropriate places to uh protect the the closest neighbors to the extent feasible.
>> That is correct. >> Uh chairman, I think that wraps it up uh for us on the affirmative case. >> Okay. Um Miss Knight, if you could review the Neglia report. Um I just have a a couple questions. So while we touched on this being an
inherently beneficial use when dealing with um D6 variances, um we look at the site specifically and if the site can accommodate the additional height as opposed to what's permitted by um the zoning. So is it in your professional
opinion that um this deviation is consistent with sound planning principles and kind of the purposes of the zoning at the township of Edison? Yes, it is. It is. As I I stated before, it it it's uh they are both industrial
buildings in an industrial setting. Uh the site is large, so it can accommodate it. It uh the distances to the closest residential both on the east and the south side are significant. Uh and uh
there it's buffered a little bit by other structures that are on the site as well as the there is some existing uh trees particularly along the northeastern corner of the property and as was already stated the trees that are
along the uh the corridor the northeast corridor. So taking all these things into account, it is my opinion that the site can accommodate the extra height of these structures without having any detrimental effects on the surrounding properties.
>> Thank you, Miss Nton. >> Welcome. >> And of course, our extra height is only the 10 ft. >> Yes. Yes. >> Thank you, Miss Miss Knight. Uh does board have any questions for Miss Totten? See none. Thank you very much, Mr.
Sconic. I don't have anything else right now. Chairman, could we open it to the public? Yes, sir. All right. So, then see where we end up. >> We'll know. We will now go out to the public. Any within anyone within 200 feet of subject site wanting to be heard. If you're within 200 feet, you
received a notice via certified mail. >> Ma'am, you're going to have you're going to have to approach the microphone first. Have you sworn? Can you do you swear affirm the testimony you give tonight will be the truth? >> Yes. You say your name and address for the record, please. >> Joan Giles, G I L E S. >> And your address? >> 76 Fairview Avenue.
>> I'm sorry. 76. >> 76 Fair View Avenue. [clears throat] >> Okay. So, >> so if you just say your your address again for this. >> 76 Fair View Avenue. >> Thank you so much.
Um my first comment is I think for a project this size that that 200 um foot radius is not enough. I I I really don't know who else is here from my neighborhood. Is anybody here to to
speak except me? I'm the only one really. There should be more people here. More people are affected. In fact, there's a line of homes down uh one of the side roads. I don't know if they got a a notice and
I don't think it's fair that for a project this size that it it's only 200 f feet because all of the residents on Fair View and Bara Avenue are affected by this.
So my comment, my first comment is I'm I'm concerned about the environmental impact. They're going to take down a lot of trees. I heard that you say you were going to replace trees, but what size trees are you planting? You're taking
down trees that are what, 30 feet tall and you're replacing them with 10ft trees. >> Dave, can you come up and try to answer the question? Take a microphone. You're still under oath. Dave, you understand that?
>> I do. >> Okay. Uh, Ms. Giles. >> Giles. Giles asked about the size of the trees that are being taken down and the replacement trees. >> Sure. Uh 96 trees are plan to be removed. 76 of those are greater than 4
in but less than 16 in. Uh eight of those are less than 18 in. Uh seven of those are less than 21 in. One of those is less than 24 in. Three of those are less than 27 in and one of those are less than 29 in. Uh, we have a
landscaping plan which I can present if you'd like, but we we're replacing them with 18 128 new trees in accordance with Edison Township's ordinance. >> So, how these are three-foot trees? >> These what? Three-foot trees. That's
what you're replacing. >> 80 80% of them are less than 16 in. So, less than >> a foot and a half. you're taking down a forest and you're replacing them with seedlings. I mean, you know, what kind of buffer is that going to have maybe 10
or 15 years from now, but right now there's, you know, it's it's not going to help us out. I live like two homes in from the plant. I have dust on my wind windows all the time from the work that
you're doing down there. There's and there's a I don't know what building it is that was constructed next to the fence on Fair View Avenue that is right next to the house on the end of the block. And I took a look at that because
I wanted to see what was going on down there. I don't know if it's a silo or what it is, but it goes from the gate all the way down the hill. So, you know, I mean, that created such
uh dust and and they painted it. There was a lot of debris around. Are is this going to all these silos and things that you're going to build? Are they going to create that kind of mess again?
>> I'm not sure the exact project you're referring to. I know the water company painted a storage tank um about six months ago. Um I'm not sure if that would have created dust or just paint in the inside and outside of it. >> So >> and the trees that are being the I'm
sorry the trees that are being removed are not um in the vicinity of Fairview Avenue. They're more >> by the new access road um way to the um west of the existing. >> You go up and show her Dave where the >> Sure.
>> the tree removal is going to take place. >> Most of the tree removal is So this is Fair View. If you could see this, this is Fair View Avenue. This is the front entrance. So, this is Fair View. This is the front entrance to the treatment plant.
>> What is that? What is that? Yeah. What is that? >> Uh, she was asking what this circular structure is. go back and so the both the board and Miss Giles could see what you're referring to there. >> So this circular structure is a 10
million gallon water storage tank that holds portable water and that water is pumped into the distribution system which the residents of Edison and the water company service area drink. >> So the size of that building, the silos and whatever else they're going to
build, are they that size? There's an existing backwash storage tank which is located here. >> Yeah. And that's >> this circle. That's a backwash storage tank. That backwash storage tank is 60 ft high. The silo will be located here.
>> That will be close to Fair View Avenue. >> That would be closer to Fair View Avenue. And that silo is um not as high as this backwash storage tank located here. So, all of those new uh buildings or
silos are going to be near the railroad side of the >> these these buildings here. There is one building, this new PAS building. >> Will be closer to the railroad tracks. >> So, this is the this is really the main
facility here. That's the large treatment plant that's being built. Okay. And what about the environmental impact and the the wildlife in the area where these trees are going to be removed?
>> Trees are back here and the trees are being replanted in the same area. >> But we're flexible working with the planner on the tree planting. So the idea is we've there's requirements and
we're replanting, but we're flexible on on where we put the trees as well. If you want trees near Fair View and you could express that to the planner and we happy to work on a plan to the extent it's going to help Fair View, we don't
mind. >> We certainly needed because there were a lot of trees that were taken out. I mean, before I I couldn't see to the next street be because there were so many trees and now there's nothing
there. So, we need more trees planted, replanted in there. >> So, noted. >> Appreciate that comment. >> Right. You know what? I think it was a waste of time for me to come here
because I I I'm not I am not opposed to fresh water. [clears throat] But do you know what what the uh what's funny? We don't have Middle Sex water. Brit
Fairview and Barth Avenue, we don't get Middle Sex water. We have Edison water, which is American water. So, we're taking all the heat on this. and with no benefit. >> I see Mr. Carr maybe disagreeing, but >> I I could respond to that on behalf of
the water company. Um Edison also purchases water from Middle Sex and there's and there's interconnections between New Jersey American and Middle Sex. So you may be getting a combination of New Jersey American water and Middle Sex water. >> But you know what I it was really this
is a done deal. It was really a waste of time for me to come here. I said this really was a done deal. It was a waste of time for me to come here because I don't think I made any impact. And I really think that for projects of this
magnitude that people within 200 ft of whatever they're doing need to be uh notified because it's not fair. I mean, I'm the only one [clears throat] that showed up. >> Ma'am, thank you so much for coming out. The board appreciate you coming out. Um, but just so you're aware, ma'am, just so
you're aware, and our attorney can probably say this better with with uh more belief than me because I'm not an attorney, but the municipal land use law requires that they notice within 200 feet of their site. Um, so that's that's the law that they have to be within 200 feet. There's no requirement that it
beyond 200 feet. Mr. Sammon, >> that's pretty good. That's good, right? I see. No, that's right. That that is what the law the law the law says. It applies to all applications. And that way we can't discriminate against one over another by saying you have to do 500 feet, you have to do 600 feet, you have to do 200 feet. It's just a uniform
standard across the board for for everyone. But thank you for coming out. We appreciate it. Is there anyone else within 200 feet of subject site wanting to be heard? Anyone outside of 200 ft of subject site want to be heard? Last call. Seeing none, can I get a
motion to close the public portion? >> Motion to close a public portion. >> Second. >> Motion made by Mr. Patel, second by Vice Chairman Gorman. All in favor signify by saying I. Those nay. The eyes have it. Public portion is now closed. Uh Mr. Sknick. >> Chairman. Uh I'd like to try to solicit
any comments if there are any from the board. We had discussed uh offline that uh I do need the five votes uh for an approval. We only have five voters here tonight. This is obviously a very
significant project. Uh I would like to have the opportunity to have at least six or seven. I've spoken uh with uh your staff who said they could get us on in August um uh for a vote. If there are any concerns of the board, certainly
like to try to address those either tonight or or or have one minute to address those if we come back if there are any. >> Okay. Does board have any concerns as addressed prior to being carried? Seeing none. Okay. Thank you. All right. So, August 25th, Madam
Secretary. >> Yes. August 25th. >> So, we're going to come back just for a two-minut summation. Hopefully, we'll have an additional member or two. >> Your lips to God's ears. >> Okay. Hopefully, all the board members are at least planning on being here. We
appreciate it's a tricky week, >> but we'll we'll plan on being here. >> Okay. All right. >> August 25th with the usual announcements. >> So, I'll put that on the record. So, for anyone here present, for anyone listening at home, this case will be carried to Tuesday, August 25th with me meeting beginning at 7 p.m. here in
council chambers. If you received a notice, you will not receive another notice. This will serve as your notice. This meeting this hearing, this uh case will be carried to Tuesday, August 25th at 7 p.m. And thank you very much, Mr. Scholik. We appreciate your time. >> Thank you very much. We're going to take a two-minute recess. Let the next case
is set up. The board will return to session. Madam Secretary, next case on the agenda, >> case number amended Z8205 Sacred Foundation at 3880 Park A. Applicant is seeking to amend resolution of approval in such to remove the
condition of approval page eight condition number 3A which requires the permanent closure of egress ingress point located at Park Gate Drive. Affected property is located in the RARI zone designated as block number 593, lot
number 1.35 on the Edison Township tax map. All noticing paperwork is in order. >> Good evening, Mr. Smith and Mr. Prasad. Uh before I turn the floor over to you, I just wanted to say so it's 9:52. Um the board usually will go till 10:30, so we're going to hold firm to that this evening. Okay.
>> We appreciate your uh flexibility. >> Absolutely. Thank you. >> Uh Mr. Chairman, for the record, Bob Smith. I'm a licensed attorney in the state of New Jersey. To my left is David Prasad, also with our office in case I forget anything. and uh we're here
tonight to amend a condition of approval that you were kind enough to grant the sacred foundation back in October of 2025. So a little back 30 second background story and that is that this year I was lucky enough to be able to go on
vacation in February and I had a chance to be in India for 17 days. During those 17 days, I traveled all over and what I saw was a people who are devoutly religious, whether it was the Hindu population, the seek population, the
Muslim population, unbelievably devout. And back here in New Jersey, I know as a person who goes to a lot of events in in our in Middle Sex County and surrounding, our South Asian population is no less religious.
All right. we you and you know the temples that are all over uh central New Jersey and how well they're populated and how many people go to them. What you did in October of 2025 was tremendous. You recognize this use as an inherently
beneficial use, which you should under the case law of the state of New Jersey. You're providing an opportunity for religious group to practice their religion. and you also did it in Edison Township in an area where there may be a deficiency of those facilities
available. So, you did a great job. So, why am I here? You did a great job except for one little thing and that is back in the uh December of last year, the resolution of approval was passed and it in effect neutered
your decision to allow the religious use. And the reason that it stopped it is that it said that um you had a block access uh on the uh on a gate into this property. The problem with that is there
are, and you're going to see this in a minute, and then this is going to be brief, that there are already uh recorded agreements between Parkgate and uh our property owners requiring that they share the access
can't be blocked. Number two, that we have um our barrierfree access and there's some medical uses in the building are on that side of the building. So, when you say you can only use the the southern end of it uh for the whole building, that creates a a
major problem. Although, quite frankly, we've already agreed we're only going to use the south roadway. We have we have no problem with that whatsoever. So, um there's we what we're asking what we're here for, we're asking to modify the one of the conditions of the resolution
still protecting uh the the intent of that uh section but not in effect preventing the use from going forward. And the reason I say that uh the way as you know the way a uh building department works in a town, they take out the resolution and they go down it
line by line before they give you a building permit. You can come in and apply for it, but you got to follow the resolution. The resolution says that this gate has to be blocked and we do not own the property. Sacred Foundation are tenants.
We have a lease to use the the property, but the landlords have have indicated clearly that they need that opening open for especially for the barrierfree access and for the the medical use. So, we're asking for a modification. So, a
little uh brief outline of of the application just to remind you of what you did and what's in the application. Um, so, Sacred Foundation is a New Jersey nonprofit. We're seeking an amended
approval of application number Z8-2025. You were kind enough to give us a use variance under NJSA 4055D-70D1 to allow a religious house of worship in the R1
zone RI zone where such use is not permitted. There were no other variances created and tonight we're seeking to modify one condition. And that condition is 3A of the resolution of approval to remove language requiring the applicant
to permanently close the access on Park Gate Drive. And additionally, we're proposing a more robust replacement. So, you will you'll still get the intent of that uh condition, but you'll do it without violating the the filed recorded
easement or creating problems for the medical use that's currently in the building. So, um, that's what we're here for. Let me remind you that this is a 2800 square foot use. The building is 65,000
square ft. 2,800 out of 65,000. We are anticipating and we testified at the last hearing that there are approximately 40 congregants every day spread out throughout the entire day and they stay there when they visit for
approximately 15 minutes per visit to pray or meditate. We understand that there were some concerns by the Park 8 community, but our professional testimony during the October 2025 hearing concluded that the impact of the proposed religious use would be
insignificant and less intense than if the permitted industrial use uh were to become a a tenant at the building. And we a we agreed that uh religious and family events would be held off site so as to not interfere with the residences
at parking or any of the other businesses in the neighborhood. You may remember uh and you quoted it your resolution of approval which is part of the record in this uh the testimony from Mr. John Ray the licensed professional NGR traffic
expert and he he testified on behalf of the application. He indicated the peak hour traffic counts were conducted in June of 2025 and that he personally visited the site around 5:00 p.m. which is the afternoon peak hour. On average,
the temple would add four to five congregants per hour over a typical day. During the peak hour, the assumption is that there would be about 10 congregants going in and out of the site. He indicated there are over 2,000 cars going through the intersection of Park
Avenue and Park Gate Drive during the peak hour. And this was that you you put this in the resolution. This was his quotation. In the worst case scenario, this application will add half of 1% of traffic to the peak rush hour.
Therefore, this application will not have a significant impact on traffic conditions in this area. The issues are that uh the memorialized resolution imposed a condition to require that the applicant permanently
close the ingress and egress point that exists on Park Gate uh Park Gate Drive which is condition 3A. That's the condition we're looking to revise. and subsequent to the uh the approval, the applicant has had discussions with the
landlord to close Park Kate Drive access. However, the landlord is not willing to close the access point because there is a 1982 recorded agreement submitted in this application and also in the application in 2025
governing the access. And since this is a condition of the approval, the applicant will not be able to obtain permits or operate until the landlord agrees to close the access. That's the problem. They put a condition on us that we can't solve. We don't own the
property. We're tenants at the property. The only one who can say yes to closing an access is the landlord. And the landlord, we've had the discussions. the landlord is saying, "No, we have a medical use in the building and we need that access because that's where the barrierfree access is on that side of
the building." Uh in the alternative at the October 2025 hearing, we agreed to prohibit all of our members of our congregation from utilizing uh utilizing Park Gate Drive and to direct all
traffic to the ingress egress point on the southern side of the property which is also contained uh in the resol resolution as condition 3. So what we're proposing to you very simple proposal take the old resolution
at uh 3A modify it as follows. And by the way this language just so you know [clears throat] always try to come into a board meeting where we've run things up the flag pole with council to make sure we're doing this as effectively as
we can do it. So the language that we thought was robust and still gets you where you want to be is as follows. quote, "Sacred Foundation, the applicant, including its members, congregants, invitees, and any other
persons associated with or utilizing the religious nonprofit use of the property located at 3880 Park Avenue shall be strictly prohibited from using Park Gate Drive for ingress and/or egress in
connection with access access to or from 3880 Park Avenue. All such persons shall only utilize the southern driveway connecting directly to Park Avenue for all vehicular ingress and egress. The
applicant shall take all reasonable measures including permanent signage, internal controls, uh regular oral and written announcement to members, congregants, and invitees or any other persons associated with or utilizing the nonprofit use of this property located
at 3800 Park Avenue to avoid using the park gate drive to ensure ongoing compliance with this conditions uh subject to a sixmonth look back. When does an applicant say to you, "We want to give you an insurance policy. Come
back in six months and see that we're obeying the conditions. If we aren't, you have the right to call us back in and do whatever you have to do, but you're not going to have that problem. This is a religious organization that wants to locate its it's worshiping at
this location." And they'll live by the rules. They've agreed to live by the rules. So, let's give them that opportunity. And I'd also point out for the record that that condition does not in any way violate the recorded agreement. So we get ourselves out of trouble with the recorded agreement. We
achieve the intended consequence which was to keep the new religious traffic sacred foundation from the Park Gate Drive uh street and we get a situation where your building permit your building department can grant a building permit.
Right now, we're in in limbo because the building department is saying, "You haven't lived up to up to the condition of closing the gate," which the landlords will not allow us to do. You put a condition on us that we can't fulfill. We're not the owners of the property. We think this is the right way
to to get around it. Uh, and I'd also note that all of the conditions in your prior approval still apply. So, for example, no food or kitchen will be permitted on the premises. That's 3B. Hours of operation Monday uh through Friday 7:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. and 400
pm to 8:00 p.m. Saturday and Sunday from 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. That's condition 3C. Condition 3D, no large events or holidays on sites. Such events will be held off site. So you have a religious group that is playing by the rules. Um
and we're asking that you not negate what you originally did. You did a in another religion it would be called a mitzvah. You did a mitzvah allowing the group to practice their religion, very low impact religion, very low impact use
of the site, but you made a condition that stopped them from moving in. And that's why we're asking you to to uh to revise it. And we think you'll get all the control you wanted uh using that mechanism. And that, Mr. Chairman, is our case. Very minor uh modification.
>> Great. Thank you very much. Does [clears throat] the board have any questions for Mr. Smith? No. Okay. Thank you very much. All right. Um so, M. So, we now got to the public. So, I'll just remind the public that um we are going to have a hard stop
this evening at 10:30 p.m. Um so, we'll open up anyone within 200 feet of subject site wanting to be heard. >> Good evening, Mr. Chairman and members of the board. Uh my name is Damon Crest. D A M O N K R E S. I'm an attorney with McGovern Legal. We're council for the
Parkgate Condominium Association and I'm here to uh strenuously object to any modification of the conditions regarding Parkgate Drive. Uh the condition included in the board's resolution >> was intentionally included to protect the associations and its residents
interest in ensuring that Park Drive is not used as a general entrance or exit to the property. the property where the sacred foundation is intending to [clears throat] conduct business consistent with the easement agreement between the association and the building owner. Um,
now I want to point out that the association also objects to any purported testimony by the applicant about the barrierfree needs uh that Park Gate Drive presents. Uh, Mr. Smith is not a fact witness here. He's not sworn to testify. He has
no personal knowledge about what the building owner's needs are for the property. If he wanted to present that evidence, he should have had that building owner here um to make that proper record. Second, um the condition in the application is not some unfair limitation placed on the
applicant because the applicant was standing in the shoes of the property owner when the applicant applied for this variance. the the property owner had to give ascent to the applicant to stand in their shoes because they do not own the property. So the limitation on
that easement or the restriction of that use is perfectly lawful given that the applicant is standing in the shoes of the landlord. Third, the applicant can't make promises for what its congregants will or will not do. Um I know they'd like to in order to
get their approval, but they can't. Those are completely independent individuals who are not subject to the resolution of approval and realistically there is no practical enforcement mechanism within the resolution to ensure those congregants comply with whatever modified restrictions the board
might consider. So with that I would obviously leave time for the homeowners to express their frustrations about any attempted modification of that restriction in this ordinance. >> Thank you very much Mr. [snorts] Chris. Um, anyone within two feet of sub
subject site want to be heard? Ma'am, >> if you could raise your right hand, please. >> Good evening. >> Do you swear affirm the testimony you give tonight with the truth? >> I do. >> You say your name and address for the record, please. >> Elena Syasi. E L E N A S I N Y. A V is
in Victor. S K Y 26 Carriage Place. And I've lived in Parkgate for the last 24 years. Less than a year ago, after hearing testimony from the applicant, traffic experts, township professionals, and residents, this board determined that
the north entrance should remain permanently closed for entry and exit. Today, I have not heard any material change in circumstances that justifies removing that condition. Bargate Drive remains the only entrance and exit for
our community. Drivers who are unfamiliar with the area can become confused by the traffic pattern. Keeping the north entrance open would introduce additional traffic onto one the one road that every resident relies on. I experienced that firsthand. Not long
ago, I was driving on Park Gate Drive when an Uber driver used the north entrance instead of the designated exit while leaving the Park Avenue property. He accelerated directly into my path and came dangerously close to hitting my car. Fortunately, no one was injured,
but it showed me how easily confusion at that location can create a dangerous situation. I would also like to point out something in the board's own resolution approving this application. The resolution specifically states the applicant will ensure the Parkate Drive
access must be permanently closed for both ingress and aggress. That [snorts] was one of the conditions the applicant accepted in order to receive this approval. This board heard testimony from the applicant and it traffic
experts before imposing that condition and much of what I have heard tonight is the same testimony that the board has already considered when it made it decision less than a year ago. The applicant was a tenant when the condition was adopted just as they are today. If complying with the condition
proved difficult, that does not change why the board imposed it. it imposed it to protect public safety. I understand that keeping this condition in place may make it more difficult to lease the Park Avenue property. However, I do not
believe that private business interests should outweigh the public safety concerns that led this board to impose this condition in the first place. I also heard the reference to the medical tenant in the building. While the laboratory might may now advertise
walk-in services, I have not heard about how that changes the public safety concerns that led this board to require permanent closure of the north entrance. Today, the applicant is asking the board to remove one of the
very conditions that made this application acceptable in the first place. Based on what I have heard tonight and my experience as a resident, I do not believe there has been a material change in circumstances that justifies removing that condition. For
these reasons, I respectfully ask the board to deny the applicant's request and preserve the condition requiring the north entrance to remain permanently closed. Thank you for your time and consideration. >> Thank you very much. Uh, next member of
public wants to be heard. Robert Yianazo Y A N A Zo um 27 Carriage Place. I have been a resident >> I'm sorry. Could you just raise your right hand, please? >> Oh. >> Do you swear or affirm? It's okay. Do you swear or affirm the testimony give will be the truth?
>> Yes, I do. >> Okay, you can continue. Thank you. >> Um I have been a resident of Parkgate for 21 years. Um when Aribba was there, we had have no problems whatsoever. When this application was granted uh by this
board and I was here for that application, um the medical facility that the uh witness u mentioned earlier was not there. I can attest to the fact that I
am a licensed architect in the state of New Jersey. The state of New Jersey designates architects um for life safety and makes them responsible for the life safety. I have seen incidences since Aribba has
left where this um owner disregards what is there. People have gone since that medical facility has gone in there. People have left the wrong way. I stood
there when the guard had to signal the woman because she was crossing in front of the guard station going to the inn portion. She was going to turn right and she would have hit somebody coming into our development.
That is what we explained when we were here at the previous application which nothing has changed. We expressed the desire to keep our community safe. This board acknowledged that there were um
safety issues and that's why that stipulation was put there. Prior to that, I had seen um before the medical facility was in there and the building was uh not being utilized that well, I
had seen people coming around in front of the um guard house um and racing into that property. That is why both the uh entrance and the
exits should be um cancelled. It should be uh permanently closed. Uh we have a easement there with a light industrial. This owner is changing that and what
this board effectively did was a change in use. And I do commend the board for doing that for a beneficial use. But that doesn't forego the life safety of the residents and the life safety of the
people using that property too because that woman could have been killed if she had gone into the car coming into our entrance. The this is why this is important and
this is why the board needs to uh decline their um application for um rethinking what this board so elegantly uh did. When they did that, you have to remember
they're a tenant and as our attorney said the they had full use of the owner. The owner has to apply. I as an architect, I've applied as chief architect for Hudson County. I was an
owner with tenants and I made sure that that met code and everything else before the tenant went and that there I took no exemption to that. And the same thing is here. that owner allowed the tenant to
come here and present in front of you and you saw fit that for the safety of our community to grant that uh restriction and you there should be no second-guing of that the safety of the
Edison uh residents is the most important thing in land use and that's what you were here for land use. Um they're not asking for a bulk use like previous uh people. They're not asking
for any of that. They're asking on the benefit on the be on the behalf of the owner. Don't f think they're fooling you by saying that they can't go into there. The owner is the one that put them there
that allowed this tenant to go in front of this board. So again, do not go against what your initial reaction for the life safety of the residents of our community are and and and even consider
trying to uh keep those open. It it is an unsafe condition and as as an architect I can attest to the fact that it is unsafe condition. I saw two incidences and I've seen plenty more and
I've heard of more from the community. >> Thank you very much. Next member of the public warning beard within 200 feet. >> Um hello. I spoke to this board uh some time back. I'm raising my hand to say yes. I will tell the truth and only the
truth. >> I have I have to say it anyway. Do you swear affirm the testimony you give tonight will be the truth? >> Say it again. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you give tonight will be the truth? >> I do. >> Can you say your name and address for the record, please? >> Okay. My name is Dr. James Hanlin. I
live at uh 82 Park Drive. Uh I've been there 20 years. I'm uh I was educated at have PhD from uh Columbia University. My uh background has been as a
superintendent of schools in New York State, three schools uh 25 years. And I'm saying, as I said the last time, what I what I see here is a problem that's
going to happen. You're going to have a situation where someone is going to be injured and it's often possibly going to be a kid. And even though, and I remember this from the last time, the officer came in and looked at the at the
at the at the egress and and opening of that area, uh the parking there at when school is out, but school is out at all different times. He wasn't there at noon. He wasn't there at at uh later in
the day. The the danger here is it's going to be on you guys if you do this guaranteed. It's an accident waiting to happen. I don't think you want that on your conscience. As a superintendent, I saw
many, many mistakes that schools made in New York State and they always regretted that they did not listen and did not follow up on the safety things that needed to be done in order to secure
kids. And you have to look at this. There's a number of young kids there. They come at different times. They're loaded down with instruments. >> They're fooling around. They're joking around because kids are kids and it's
teenagers from kids who are seven, six, seven, eight years old. Now, this I'm gonna say this. You You don't want this on your on your conscience if something were to happen. And I'm telling you, it will happen. I've seen a lot of schools. I've done a
lot of work with schools in terms of safety. And you're putting yourself in a very, very dangerous situation. And the speaker performing clearly let it out. I know when I walk up there, if I go up through that gate at when the kids come
in, and I do that often because I I take my dog and so forth out there, it's chaos. And many of the drivers that come in have no respect for kids or no respect that this is a community that is
an educational community in in the best sense. People come here because they want good education and ed and Edison has a terrific reputation as an educational uh school and an area and you this is
just you know as I say avoid the danger not yet come and I will underline that. I appreciate what you've done so far and I thank you for allowing me to speak. Thank you very much. Next member of the
public want to be heard within 200 ft. >> Elus Way, 3895 Park Avenue. >> Could you raise your right hand? Do you swear affirm the testimony you give tonight will be the truth? >> I do. >> Okay. >> W. Uh, the only reason I'm here today, I
don't really care if they close it off or don't close it off. I live directly across the street from the entrance exit of the building. They were supposed to put up signs. No left turn, no right turn.
That has to be done. >> Sir, please speak to the mic so we have it all on record. >> Okay. Yeah, that has to be done with the signs. Uh it doesn't matter if they close it off to me. Uh simple solution for that would just close off the on the island. Just close it off and then no
one will have to say anything. Uh, I believe in everything everybody else said, but there's going to be a lot more accidents right in front of my house. There were six already this year. Telephone knocked down three times already. Did some damage to my house. Did some
damage to my car. Or who's going to be responsible for that? I mean, he's saying it's only 40 people. So 40 people, six cars a day. Seven cars a day. It's not, you know, I'm I'm against the whole thing totally.
So, I'm glad that you did put that in amendment and I'm glad they're trying to fight it out and I hope they don't win. >> That' be it. >> Thank you very much. Next, resident within 200 ft. >> Excuse me.
>> I didn't see the line. Nobody said a line. >> Okay. You just said a line, did you? Ma'am, >> can you raise your right hand, please? Do you swear affirm the testimony give tonight will be the truth? >> I do. >> Can you say your name and address for the record, please? And you probably need to bring the mic microphone down.
>> Sure. My name is Rinky and I live at 47 Gate House Lane in Park. So, >> sure. Rinky Singh. R I N K I S S I N G H.
So good evening chairperson, members of zoning board and the residents. My name is Rinki Singh and I live at 47 Gate House Lynn in Park. I also serve as District 5 Democratic Committee women. Tonight I am speaking as both as a
resident and on behalf of many resident in the pgate community and thank you so much whoever came here and talk about our problem that we are already facing and the future is going to be a lot more. So first I want to make one thing very clear that we are not here to
oppose temple or its activities. We welcome all faiths and respect every organization right to serve community. Our request tonight is much narrower. We are simply asking that condition 3A, which was part of the original approval,
remain in place because we believe it continues to protect public safety and our neighborhood. I had the opportunity to review the historical document related to this property and one thing became very clear. More than 40 years
ago in 1982 when Parkplace Muse was being developed as a residential community, the owner of Park Stevenson Spakes entered the detailed agreement regarding access of this property. The arrangement carefully planned how
vehicles will enter and exit the property. It required the northern driveway to be closed once the new entrance was constructed. restricted truck traffic and clearly defined how traffic would flow. It also addressed maintenance insurance responsibility
related to this access point. To me this shows the traffic circulation and the safety were thoughtfully considered from very beginning. These were not an accidental decisions. They were intentional planning decisions. Today
those same concerns still exist. Pargate has only one entrance and one exit. Every day our resident use that entrance. Children wait there for school buses. Families walk through that area. Residents exercise, walk through, walk
their dogs and emergency vehicle rely on the same access point. Opening this entrance to additional traffic would increase congestion and create unnecessary safety concerns to everyone who lives in our community. The board
previously imposed condition 3A for a reason. We respectfully believe those reasons remain just as valid today as they were when condition was adopted. On behalf of the resident of Par, I respectfully request that board preserve
condition 3A and deny the request to remove it. Before I leave, I want to ask three question for board to think about. Has anything changed since the original approval that makes condition 3A unnecessary? What new evidence shows
that public safety would be improved by removing it? Why should a condition that has protected traffic circulation for years be removed? Now, thank you so much for your time and consideration. >> Thank you very much. Uh, next resident within 200 ft.
>> Could you raise your right hand, please? Do you affirm the testimony give tonight will be the truth? >> I do. Can you state your name and address for the record, please? >> My name is Nicholas Vizard. V E Z A R D A R D. V E Z A R D. >> Sir, can you take off the mic? Speak
closer. There you go. >> I just hold it. So, good evening. My name is Nick Vizard. I live at 45 Park Gate Drive. Before addressing the application, I would like clarification on the notification process. As I said, I live within the 200 ft. Last year, I
received a mailed notice because of my address. This year, neither I nor my close neighbor, even closer to that place, received one. I would like an explanation on that, why it occurred, and whether the notification requirements were fully satisfied.
I want to be clear that my concern is not about the proposed use of the property itself. A place of worship can certainly be a positive addition to the Edison community. My concern like the other people before is about traffic safety and increased congest congestion
at the intersection of Park Avenue and the North Park entrance. There is already significant congestion at that intersection during the mid to late afternoon. The traffic expert saw things that are not very real I believe and
whatever this uh rules are put in place that there will be more people going through this entrance. You can give all the instructions you want. These people are free to come in one way or the other. So as traffic builds, drivers will become impatient. There will be
more statistics about risks of accident and it will make unsafe decisions. So, less than a year ago, while leaving Parkate, I narrowly avoided a head-on collision when a van traveling on Park Avenue turned into the north entrance
against the designated traffic pattern, came directly toward me, and we were fortunate to avoid a serious accident. More traffic, more statistics, accident will happen. I'm sorry, it's just how it goes. I described that incident in this
to this board in the last hearing. The board made a decision based on traffic safety concern. Since then, my concerns have not diminished. In fact, I have continued to witness additional near miss situations involving drivers entering and exiting this Park Avenue
property. I've heard similar concerns from immediate neighbors as well. These incidents show that despite the existing signs and traffic controls and instructions, drivers who are not familiar with this area are still
becoming confused. Reopening the north entrance for entry and exit will create more opportunities for those kinds of incidents to occur. To my knowledge, nothing has changed since the board decisions last October that would make this location safer than it is than than
it was then. If anything, activity at the site has already increased, including the addition of walk-ins welcome signs by the Avantic Blood Testing Lab, this medical location. They they are calling for
people to not drive in and they're driving in the wrong way. So adding more traffic is is just going to be a total headache. Parket Drive remains the only entrance and exit for our community. Residents rely on it every day. What we do not need is a substantial increase in
traffic using that entrance. It's reasonable to expect that attendance at the proposed facility will grow. Whatever we've heard tonight, it will grow over time as the congregation grows. If that happens, the traffic and safety concerns of the north entrance
are also likely to increase. For all these reasons, I respectfully ask the board to maintain the existing condition requiring the north parate entrance to remain closed for entry and exit. I believe that continuing to
prioritize public safety like you did is the most responsible course of action. Thank you for your time and your consideration. >> Thank [clears throat] you very much, sir. Um, so given the time and night um and the amount of public that still want to speak, um, so we're going to seek Mr.
Smith to carry this case for another evening. >> Would you indicate, Mr. Chairman, what night we're talking about? >> I got to refer to my boss, Madam Secretary. >> So, we have August 25th available if you want to carry there or we can go
to September 22nd, which is a more free night. >> August the 25th works. >> Okay. All right. >> That would be at 7 PM. >> 7 PM. So, okay. So, uh, this case will be carried to August Tuesday, August 25th with a meeting beginning at 7:00
p.m. here in council chambers. If you receive the notice, you will not receive another notice. This will serve as your notice. Um, folks, I know there's a considerable crowd that's here that has not spoken yet, you will have an opportunity to speak at the next hearing. Um, thank you so much for coming out and thank you so much for your patience with us.
>> Madam Secretary, any other business come before the agenda? I'm sorry. Come before the board this evening. >> That'll be all for this evening. >> Can I get a motion to adjurnn? Motion to adjurnn. >> Second. >> Motion made by Vice Chairman Gorman, second by Mr. Patel. All in favor signify by saying I. >> I. Those nay.