Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Z342025 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Edison board denies application for addition at 22 Augusta Avenue after notice dispute
Summary
The board denied a request to add a first‑floor master suite at 22 Augusta Avenue. Counsel raised concerns that the applicant's public notice was likely inadequate, the applicant chose to proceed at risk, and the board ultimately voted to deny the application.
The Township of Edison Board of Adjustment denied an application to add a first‑floor master bedroom at 22 Augusta Avenue during its Jan. 27 special meeting after hearing planner testimony and a contested exchange about public notice.
Applicant Bhagwat Chokshi said the addition would allow his aging parents to live safely on the first floor. Planner Mr. Fletcher testified the lot is conforming in area but substandard in depth (90 feet where 100 feet is required) and that the proposed 12‑by‑25‑foot addition would create a front yard setback of 13.78 feet where 25 feet is required. Fletcher entered Exhibit A1 (tax map with nearby properties showing existing front‑setback nonconformities) and argued the addition would not create sight‑distance or safety issues.
Board counsel told the applicant the public notice filed with the application was likely inadequate because it did not specify the precise relief requested and contained misleading language; counsel warned the defect could be jurisdictional on appeal. The applicant consulted with his planner and elected to proceed with the hearing despite counsel's warning that an approval could be vulnerable to challenge.
After board questions about comparability of cited properties and the smaller size of the applicant's lot, Vice Chair Gorman moved to deny the application, citing failure to meet positive and negative criteria and insufficient exhibits. The motion passed by roll call and the application was denied.
The denial resolves Z342025 for now; counsel's comments on notice leave open the potential for later legal challenge depending on how notice requirements are viewed by a reviewing court.
