Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident says planning approval for 1039 Amboy Avenue may violate local code and urges council review
Summary
At the Jan. 12 Edison council work session, resident Dr. Nasser urged the council to answer questions and consider legal steps after the planning board’s Dec. 15 approval of 1039 Amboy Avenue; he alleged multiple compliance problems including parking, sidewalk waivers near a school, and ADA/right-of-way issues and asked the council to review the application.
Dr. Nasser, who identified himself as a Pleasant Avenue resident, told the Edison Township Council on Jan. 12 that he is considering legally challenging the planning board’s Dec. 15 approval of a development at 1039 Amboy Avenue and asked the council for written answers and legal guidance.
Nasser said the project was remanded from the Superior Court and that Ordinance 2233-2024 (the council-adopted form-based code) both relaxed parking rules and required that cars be concealed behind building liners on Amboy Avenue. He said he believes the approved plan lacks the required first-floor liner so vehicles will be visible from Amboy Avenue and that no variances were requested to permit that condition.
Nasser also raised multiple technical and safety concerns: he alleged angle parking on Cabote Avenue is not authorized by local ordinance and that the dimensions violate RSIS (the residential site-improvement standards), questioned whether grandfathering applies and when it ends, said the project appears to have obtained a sidewalk waiver despite a local rule he cited that bars sidewalk waivers within two miles of a school, and asked whether the public right-of-way and ADA access were adequately addressed.
Council members and the township attorney declined to give immediate legal advice. The attorney said he did not have the application in front of him, could not provide definitive legal guidance on the spot, and offered to review the materials and meet with the resident after the meeting. Council leaders said they would pass the matter to the administration and the appropriate board attorney for deeper review.
Nasser asked whether the township needs a public advocate to help residents navigate such land-use questions; a council member said the body would look into the idea but noted he personally did not support creating a public advocate for several reasons.
What happens next: the attorney offered to review the application and provide direction when staff can examine the specific filings; Dr. Nasser said he would supply paperwork and consult with counsel before deciding whether to file a court challenge. The council did not take formal action on the project during the Jan. 12 meeting.
Authorities cited in meeting: Ordinance 2233-2024 (form-based code), RSIS references, and unspecified New Jersey ADA/right-of-way requirements (as raised by the commenter). The township attorney asked for time to review the actual application and related filings before advising on legal options.
