A long-simmering fight over portable toilets exposed a deeper clash in Jackson over property rights, neighborhood quality of life, enforcement, and how far local government should go.
Jackson, NJ – Jackson Township has adopted a new ordinance regulating portable toilets on residential and construction properties after a lengthy public hearing that drew criticism from contractors, business owners, and residents, while also exposing divisions on the council over government overreach, neighborhood aesthetics, and enforcement. The measure, known as Ordinance 2026-05, sets rules for where porta-potties may be placed, how long they may remain, and when permits and fees are required.
The ordinance was pitched by supporters as a needed response to complaints about portable toilets lingering in front yards, near sidewalks, and at properties tied to construction, overcrowding, pool rentals, and other long-running neighborhood disputes. Opponents argued the law creates unnecessary bureaucracy, adds fees to residents and contractors, and risks penalizing legitimate temporary needs such as home repairs, septic failures, parties, and emergency plumbing issues.
Before public comment began, council members explained that the ordinance had already been softened from its original form after input from contractors and others in the field. Council President Mordechai Burnstein said the township “received multiple feedback from residents and from contractors” and made “a minor change to the initial ordinance” by removing a requirement for a survey after discussions with contractors. He said the ordinance now recommends rear-yard placement when possible, allows other placement when necessary with a small fee, and requires the unit to be removed before a certificate of occupancy is issued on a construction project.
Key Points
- Jackson adopted a new ordinance regulating porta potty placement, permitting, and removal on residential and construction properties
- Supporters said the law addresses unregulated long-term use, illegal rentals, pool parties, and neighborhood quality-of-life complaints
- Opponents, including Councilman Chris Pollak, warned the ordinance adds fees, bureaucracy, and burdens for legitimate temporary needs
One of the first members of the public to speak in favor of the revised process was Aaron Hirsch, who identified himself as representing the Central Jersey Builders Association.
Hirsch said the trade group represents “about a thousand local construction professionals in the area” and thanked Burnstein, Councilman Chris Pollak, and other council members for working with the industry. “We really appreciate everyone working with us and keeping the intent of the ordinance together with understanding the perspective of the contractors,” Hirsch said.
That tone quickly shifted as other speakers pressed the council on how the ordinance would work in practice, what would happen to existing portable toilets already sitting around town, and whether local officials had truly consulted the companies most affected by the new law.
Elanor Hannum, a Jackson resident who has frequently spoken at council meetings on development and neighborhood issues, raised immediate concerns about enforcement and whether the ordinance would apply retroactively. “What happens with all of the porta-potties that are sitting in front of some of these facilities right now?” Hannum asked.
Township attorney Greg McGuckin responded that the ordinance “would apply to any new location of a porta-potty” and that, going forward, a permit would be required. When Hannum followed up by asking who would enforce the law, McGuckin answered, “It is the zoning officer.”
Hannum’s questions highlighted one of the unresolved tensions in the debate: while the ordinance sets a framework for future placements, residents clearly remain concerned about visible existing units that have already become part of the controversy in Jackson neighborhoods. The comments suggested that some homeowners believe the township is only now moving to regulate a problem that has been visible for some time.
You people do a terrible job
The sharpest criticism came from Steve Fostek, a longtime resident and owner of Clean Seat Portable Restrooms in Jackson, who blasted the council for what he described as poor communication and a failure to engage directly with local porta-potty operators before moving forward.
“If you’re all supposed to be our representatives, you do a terrible job,” Fostek said, adding that he had sent letters to each council member and the mayor but heard back only from Burnstein and, later, Pollak by text message. “As far as the rest is, I didn’t hear boo. Not one word. It’s a shame that on your website you say, ‘Hey, contact us.’ We send you emails and they go ignored.”
Fostek said he understood there had been concerns about portable toilets in town, but argued the council should have first spoken to the people who actually rent, place, and service them. “Did you just contact anybody? Did you contact United Site Services in Jackson? Is Clean Seat Portable Restrooms in Jackson? Did you just reach out and say, ‘Hey, this is the problem we’re having. What do you recommend, or where can we do this, or what can we do, or how can we address it?’ Nope. Not at all,” he said.
He also objected to the permit requirement and said earlier drafts of the ordinance had gone even further, including a proposal that would have charged people for having a porta-potty at a backyard party. “I think it’s bad enough that the contractors are paying all the money that they’re paying for inspection fees and things like that, and now you want to put another fee onto them. I think it’s absolutely crazy,” Fostek said. “Absolutely ludicrous.”
Fostek challenged one of the ordinance’s core assumptions — that portable toilets should be placed in rear yards whenever possible. In his telling, that may sound good in theory but often fails in the field. “As far as putting them in the backyard, you can’t service them that way,” he said. “Can’t get the service truck in the back. Hose isn’t long enough to get back there to service it.” He argued that a properly maintained unit serviced weekly should not create the odor and sanitation issues some residents complain about. “If you put out a decent porta potty and you maintain it, service it on a weekly basis, there is no smell from the porta potties,” he said.
He also raised emergency scenarios that he believed the ordinance could complicate, including plumbing failures after hours or on weekends. “What about the person that their plumbing breaks on a Saturday?” Fostek asked. “I’ve gotten several calls for people that had broken pipes. So now, how do they deal with it? Oh, sorry. Have to hold it. Have to use the woods until Monday till we can get a permit.”
Burnstein responded that the ordinance addresses emergency situations by allowing a unit to be delivered first and the permit obtained retroactively on the next business day. “If you obviously have a plumbing issue or an emergency, you could get it on the weekend and then you apply,” Burnstein said. “I think it’s the first business day and that your permit would go retroactively from that time.”
Burnstein defended the council’s process, saying the ordinance evolved substantially because of input received over several weeks. “The first ordinance was a lot harsher,” he acknowledged, adding that after outreach from Hirsch and others, the council had tried to arrive at a more workable middle ground. He said that if someone is “making a party in the backyard for 24 hours,” there would be no fee, and stressed that the township was trying to balance various concerns rather than make life harder for residents.
Another resident, Brandon Rose of Jackson, urged the council not to adopt the measure, arguing it would create violations for ordinary people who would have no reason to think a short-term porta potty needed a permit. “This is kind of an obscure ordinance that would be put in place,” Rose said. “If somebody’s having a party in the backyard, I’m not going to go looking through the ordinances to make sure I register that porta potty.” Rose suggested the township would be better off treating problem units as a maintenance or nuisance issue rather than creating an entirely new permitting structure.
On the dais, the debate reflected those same divisions.
Councilman Nino Borrelli said he had voted no on first reading and still had concerns, but ultimately supported the ordinance because Jackson currently had no rules on the books governing these situations. He said he was worried about porta potties becoming “a detriment to their neighbors and affecting the aesthetics of neighborhoods in our town,” but concluded that some regulation was preferable to none. Borrelli noted that the ordinance now addresses issues such as units being placed on sidewalks, streets, or rights-of-way, and said the township could revisit the law later if it needed tightening.
Pollak, however, remained opposed and delivered one of the clearest ideological critiques of the night. “I’m voting no on this,” he said. Pollak acknowledged that “real abuses” were happening and said officials had seen “porta potties used as secondary bathrooms for overcrowded homes,” as well as units tied to “illegal pool rentals” and left in front yards for extended periods. Still, he argued the township was responding the wrong way. “Where I think we’re going wrong with this is we’re adding more government. We’re adding more bureaucracy, and we’re adding more fees,” Pollak said. “Some residents have legitimate temporary needs, construction, home repairs, septic issues, emergencies.” He added, “As I do this more and more, I value liberty more and more.”
Council Vice President Giuseppe Palmeri took the opposite view and made the case that the ordinance was necessary precisely because the township had allowed too much unregulated use for too long. “Right now, it’s unregulated,” Palmeri said. “Anybody can have a porta potty for as long as they want, wherever they want. It can be right up on your property line.” He said neighbors should not have to live indefinitely next to portable toilets sitting by driveways and sidewalks.
Palmeri tied the ordinance directly to wider complaints in Jackson about illegal rentals and seasonal pool-related activity. “We have illegal pool renting in this community. We know that,” he said. “I’ve seen porta potties in your backyard for 4 months.”
For Palmeri, the issue was not whether temporary units are ever necessary — he said construction sites “no doubt” need them — but whether the town should continue allowing open-ended placement with no rules. “There has to be some regulation,” he said.
He also strongly defended the setback requirements and the $50 fee for front-yard placement, saying the cost was meant to encourage less visible placement where possible. “We’re not saying you can’t put it in the front of your house, but I don’t want to smell your poop in my driveway,” Palmeri said. He said backyard placement made more sense for parties and that 30 days, including extensions, should be more than enough for temporary event-related use. “I’ve never attended a party for 30 days that you needed a porta potty,” he said.
Palmeri also tied the measure to the township’s broader quality-of-life concerns. “This is getting to look like a ghetto,” he said. “We don’t want Jackson becoming a ghetto.” He cited debris, litter, illegal renting, and pool renting as part of the same larger problem the township is trying to address.
Burnstein closed out the council discussion by saying the ordinance was a product of weeks of revisions, calls, emails, and pushback from various sides. He said some residents had wanted even tougher regulation, while others had pushed for fewer restrictions, and described the final version as a compromise shaped by that feedback.
In the end, the ordinance passed, setting up a new framework in Jackson where portable toilets remain allowed but no longer unregulated. For supporters, that is a long-overdue step toward preserving neighborhood standards. For critics, it is another example of local government layering permits and fees onto everyday life.
Either way, Tuesday night’s debate made clear that in Jackson, even a fight over porta-potties is rarely just about porta-potties. It is about control, enforcement, property rights, people pushing the limits, visible signs of overuse and overcrowding, and who gets to decide what a neighborhood should look like.