Edison Planning Board Approves 14 Mercer Street Subdivision Despite Opposition From ~70% of Contacted Neighbors
I just want to make one thing clear about what happened with the 14 Mercer Street subdivision.
We were told that the current house, which I understand is approximately 1,500 sq. ft., is too small for the family — a couple, their young baby, and two medium-sized poodles.
I understand wanting a bigger home. Really, I do.
But I still don't understand how that turns into building three houses on about 38,000 sq. ft. of land, cutting down mature trees where we have watched deer live and walk through for years, and opening a new private road/driveway into a quiet dead-end neighborhood.
And if my estimate is right, these three houses could mean around $60,000 a year in property taxes.
What concerns me even more is how much relief from the normal requirements was requested.
Two of the proposed lots will not have frontage on a public street. The application sought variance and design-waiver relief. Yet at the hearing, residents were not shown what we considered adequate evidence demonstrating that the private access would provide safe and adequate access for fire trucks and other emergency vehicles serving three separate homes.
These are not small questions.
New Jersey land-use law establishes legal standards that must be satisfied before certain variance relief can be granted, including under N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70(c). Whether all of those standards were actually satisfied in this case is a question residents have every right to ask.
About 70% of the neighbors we contacted were against this project. People came out, signed petitions, asked questions, and raised real concerns about drainage, fire and emergency access, safety, mature trees, and what this development will do to our neighborhood.
And still, the Planning Board approved it.
That is the part I have a hard time accepting.
We elect our local officials to serve the community. We work every day and pay taxes to support our local government. We should be able to trust that the system will listen to ordinary residents and apply the same rules fairly to everyone.
Instead, many of us walked away from that hearing feeling like our voices simply didn't matter.
I'm not saying someone shouldn't be allowed to improve their own property. Of course they should.
But turning one residential property into three building lots, including two without public-street frontage, affects more than one property owner. It affects the people who already live around it and the character and safety of the neighborhood.
And when the property is connected to an elected official, I believe residents have even more reason to ask questions and expect transparency, careful review, and confidence that the same legal standards are being applied to everyone.
We live here too. We pay taxes too. And this is our neighborhood too.