Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Owner of 110 Calvert Ave seeks coverage variance after unpermitted demolition; hearing carried for notice review
Loading...
Summary
The applicant seeks a modest building‑coverage variance to add an accessible single‑story rear addition. Neighbors and the board raised questions about demolition that occurred after a zoning denial and a stop‑work order; the hearing was carried to May 19 so missing neighbors can be renoticed.
Tanuja Adiani asked the Edison Zoning Board of Adjustment on April 28 for a building‑coverage variance to add an 800‑square‑foot rear addition to her one‑story home at 110 Calvert Avenue East, saying the single‑story plan is necessary for family medical and accessibility needs.
Attorney Bernard Shire told the board the proposal would increase building coverage from roughly 23 percent to about 28 percent but would not affect height or rear and side setbacks. Planner and civil engineer John P. DuPont testified the renovated home would total about 3,142 square feet and that, in his view, the application satisfies both c.1 and c.2 variance standards because the property configuration and medical necessity limit reasonable use of the lot. "This is a case where due to medical necessity, the applicant needs a functional first floor," DuPont said.
Adiani, sworn to testify, described purchasing the house in May 2025 to remain close to family and said the design stems from the need to avoid stairs for an ill household member. Architect Ronald Kasmarsky reviewed the submitted plans and the conversion of a crawl space to a basement area to address existing foundation issues; he said the basement would not be conditioned living space as proposed.
Board members pressed the applicant and witnesses about permitting, demolition and cleanup. The record shows a denial of a zoning permit in August 2025, a stop‑work order signed in late November 2025, and a summons issued in January 2026. Neighbors and some board members questioned how substantial gutting and placement of two 30‑yard dumpsters occurred if owners were not on site; Adiani and attorney Shire said the contractor began demolition and that the homeowners were not living at the property while plans were being prepared. "I had no idea there was a dumpster on the property," Adiani said. Shire said the homeowners entered a not‑guilty plea in municipal court and that court proceedings were pending.
Neighbor Brett Shillkraut, who said he lives adjacent to the property, told the board he and other neighbors had not received certified notice of the hearing and asked that the matter be adjourned so counsel could review the record. The board reviewed certified‑mail receipts shown by the applicant and agreed there may have been an omission on the 200‑foot mailing list. The board accepted a motion to carry the case and directed the applicant to produce an updated 200‑foot list and renotice any residents missing from the earlier list.
The applicant consented in writing to extend the time for the board to act. The application was carried to May 19, 2026 at 7 p.m. in Council Chambers, where the same witnesses and exhibits are expected to appear. The board noted that the building department and municipal court actions related to the stop‑work order remain separate enforcement processes.
No vote on the variance was taken at the April 28 session.
