JACKSON – Township officials took a plunge into the problem of mobile toilets positioned around the community with an ordinance that covers the installation, maintenance and servicing of traveling restrooms better known as porta-potties.
The Township Council adopted the ordinance during their latest meeting. After it was introduced on its first reading on February 10, some homeowners and area contractors expressed some concerns about it. They stated the ordinance would add costs and complications, which would ultimately pass on reading number two.
The ordinance includes a mandatory $50 fee if they are put in front of homes and a time restriction on their operation. Those found in violation of the new regulations could face fines as high as $500.
Council President Mordechai Burnstein explained the movement behind creating the ordinance saying too many people left them for six months or more on their respective property.
Burnstein pledged that the new ordinance would help clean up township neighborhoods and noted that while construction projects in the township were welcome, the stench left behind by porta-potties was something that needed to be wiped out.
Current regulations allow for construction crews and Jackson homeowners to install portable toilets at any location without a permit minus any time constraints. The new ordinance flushes those options away.
The new regulations require a permit, which would be free provided their placement in the rear of the property but you’d pay $50 for the luxury of having it in your front yard.
There would be a limit at construction sites to allow them until the job was done. A project wouldn’t get a certificate of occupancy (CO) until the porta-potties on site were gone. They would also have to be 15 feet back from a front property line and 10 feet away from the rear yard property line in back of the home.
They can’t block any sidewalks or obstruct driveways or right of ways. The permits for their use on non-construction sites have limits of 10 days each and can only be issued three times a year for each location. The only exceptions are for those with emergency needs that would occur on evenings, holidays, and weekends when township offices are closed.
The porta-potties would be permitted in those cases until the next day of business at which time a formal application would have to be presented.
Porta-potties near the Justice Complex parks and other municipal parks could be found in violation as well. No exceptions were included for sites owned by the township or the school district when originally drafted.
Mayor Jennifer Kuhn described the ordinance as a “quality of life measure” that would help township residents.
Resident Elenor Hannum asked who would be enforcing the new regulations. She was told that the township’s zoning officer would be responsible for that. She also asked “what is going to happen to some of the porta potties that are sitting in front of some of these facilities right now?”
Township Attorney Gregory McGuckin responded that applications for use of porta potties would be required “going forward.”
Aron Hirsch, representing CJAB Central Jersey Association of Builders said, “we represent about a thousand local construction professionals in the area and we appreciate you working with us and keeping the intent of the ordinance together with understanding the perspective of the contractors.”
Burnstein thanked him for their cooperation and understanding “the quality of life that Jackson residents are demanding in their neighborhoods.”
Some however wanted to put a lid on this ordinance. They include those who operate the mobile toilets.
Clean Seat Portable Restrooms owner Steve Fostek expressed a different view during the public comment period. His firm is based in Jackson. “You are all supposed to be our representatives. You do a terrible job. I sent a letter to each and every one of you, including the mayor. The only one I heard back from was from Mr. Burnstein. It was only a couple of sentences but at least he acknowledged that he received an email.”
“Mr. (Councilman Christopher) Pollak reached out in a text message. As far as the rest of you, I didn’t hear boo. I understand you had concerns with porta-potties. Did you contact anybody?” Fostek asked.
Fostek further asked, “did you reach out and say hey, this is a problem we are having? What do you recommend or how do we address it? Nope not at all.”
He noted that contractors pay various fees “and things like that and now you want to put another fee onto them. I know in the original version you were going to charge people to have a (porta-potty at) backyard party.”
“As far as putting them in the back yard, you can’t service them that way. The hose isn’t long enough to get back there to service it,” Fostek noted. “Pretty piss poor if you ask me.”
Other porta potty vendors who do business in Jackson include A. Hubert Construction and United Site Services which have expressed the same concerns.
“It’s really nice seeing a healthy debate over porta-potties,” Pollak remarked. “I’m voting no on this but I do appreciate that we are trying to address this issue and I hope we can come to a good common ground. Where I think we are going wrong is that we are adding more government, we are adding more bureaucracy and we are adding more fees.”
“I do support this ordinance and I’ll tell you why. Right now, it is unregulated,” Council Vice President Giuseppe Palmeri said. He pointed out that porta potties could currently be anywhere “forever.”
“We have heard various different opinions in the five, six weeks since we’ve been discussing this in more depth. Obviously, we tried our best to keep in mind all the various concerns,” Burnstein said before voting yes on the ordinance. “This will require you to think before you drop it down.”
“I vote yes. I am not against having a temporary porta-potty if they need it for construction or home improvements. I do understand the purpose of regulating where porta-potties can go with setback requirements. Other towns in our state don’t have this kind of ordinance on the books,” Councilman Nino Borrelli said.
Councilman Ken Bressi also voted yes.
