One Minute to Mansfield - Episode 9 - Town Meeting Recap - 11/25/2025

The November Mansfield Township Committee meeting focused on past tax and auction results, the sale of township-owned lots, progress on road projects and grants, concerns about zoning enforcement consistency, a long-running junkyard dispute, and a proposal to refund part of the state concealed carry permit fee. Several items raised by residents and officials will need follow up in future meetings.

Minutes, Clerk Updates, and Operation Toy Train

The Committee approved the executive and regular session minutes from November 12, 2025.

The Clerk reported that a formal agreement is being prepared to clarify the transfer and long term use of a fire vehicle by the fire company so that ownership and return conditions are clear if issues arise in the future. The Clerk asked to review this agreement with committee members at the next meeting.

The Clerk also reported that the old EMS vehicle has been sold, professional service RFPs for 2026 have been received and distributed to the Committee, and that the Committee must confirm its 2026 reorganization date so a resolution can be prepared. Operation Toy Train will stop in Port Murray on December 6, and new unwrapped toys are being collected in the municipal lobby and at the police department.

Residents should ask:

• When will the fire vehicle agreement be finalized and made public?

• When will the 2026 reorganization date and professional appointments be set and announced?

• How can residents participate further in Operation Toy Train and similar community events?
  
  

Tax Sale, Auction Proceeds, and Township Lot Sales

The Finance office reported that the township received a check for roughly sixty-four thousand dollars from the September 17 auction of a township property, which significantly exceeded the minimum price that had been set by the township.

The 2024 tax sale was held on November 19. Sixteen properties were included, and all were purchased by outside lien holders, so no properties reverted to the township.

The Tax Collector has also sent letters to adjacent property owners where the township owns small, non-buildable lots next to private land. Approximately forty letters were sent, and about half of the owners have responded with interest in purchasing these lots. The Collector requested that the Committee create a subcommittee to set pricing, decide whether back taxes must be paid, and establish a consistent policy for these sales, using assessed values and tax data with input from the tax assessor.

Residents should ask:

• Will the township publicly share a clear policy for pricing and selling surplus non-buildable lots?

• Will buyers be required to pay any or all back taxes on township-owned parcels, or will sales be treated as fresh transfers?

• How will the township use revenue from auction and lot sales to benefit residents and reduce future tax pressure?
  
  

Road Projects, Grants, and State Coordination

The Township Engineer reported that the Schneider Road Section 2 project has passed final inspection by NJDOT with no comments and no required corrective action. Punch list items are still outstanding, but the contractor has been notified.

For Mitchell Road, the township has received signed contract documents and agreements from the chosen contractor. A pre-construction meeting will be scheduled, with most work likely occurring in the spring, although some inlet or drainage work may be done earlier depending on scheduling and weather.

The township has been awarded a 2026 municipal aid grant from NJDOT totaling one hundred thirteen thousand six hundred fifty-four dollars for a local road project. The Engineer also reminded the Committee about the 2026 local recreation improvement grant opportunity targeted to tennis court upgrades. The township must decide on the scope of work so that he and the grant writer can prepare cost estimates and submit an application, likely due near the end of January.

Mansfield Meadows continues to build out. The Engineer reported that up to fifteen certificates of occupancy have been recommended, and thirty-one driveway permits have been issued out of forty-five lots. A meeting with the developer and township professionals is scheduled for December 3 to address sight issues and other open items.

The Engineer has already written to NJDOT about the sight line concern at Kings Highway and Route 57 and is still awaiting a response. He also plans to send a letter after Thanksgiving that will cover both the prior request related to engine brake noise and a new request for a delayed green at the Route 57 and Airport Road signal.

Residents should ask:

• When will the remaining Schneider Road punch list work be finished and fully closed out?

• Will the township publish the details of the NJDOT municipal aid grant and identify exactly which road segments will be improved?

• What is the proposed scope and cost for the tennis court grant application, and will residents have input before it is submitted?

• What outcomes does the township expect from the December 3 meeting with the Mansfield Meadows developer?

• How will the township update residents on NJDOT responses regarding Kings Highway, Route 57, and Airport Road?
  
  

Zoning Enforcement Consistency and Workload

During public comment, resident Michael Bollard of 781 Route 57 raised concerns about zoning enforcement consistency. He stated that he has observed at least nineteen residential properties with vehicles that appear to be stationary for long periods of time based on visible conditions and historic public access imagery. At the same time, he noted that township records show zoning enforcement activity focused on only a few residents, and that his own zoning summons was issued less than forty-eight hours after his Land Use Board hearing was carried.

He asked three main questions: what written standards guide when zoning inspections or violation notices are issued, whether there is any township-wide enforcement plan to ensure equal attention across neighborhoods, and what oversight the Committee has over the zoning officer’s workload and enforcement patterns.

The Township Attorney responded that the zoning officer is an administrative officer who issues violations at his own discretion and that the Committee should not direct enforcement on specific cases. The Attorney explained that, in Bollard’s case, the zoning officer had delayed issuing a notice while a land use application was pending, then issued it once there was no relief from the board, which he described as standard practice.

Zoning Officer Tom Silvia then spoke directly. He stated that he is part-time and works twenty hours per week, does weekly rounds, and gives residents leeway before issuing summonses. He acknowledged that there are other properties in town with similar vehicle issues and said he intends to address them as time and circumstances allow. He disputed the suggestion that he had worked forty hours or more, and said, "I don't feel the need to explain every single thing I do as a part-time employee", but insisted that he is not engaging in selective enforcement.

Residents should ask:

• Why does the township not have written zoning enforcement guidelines that can be shared with the public?

• Will the Committee review whether enforcement is complaint-driven, proactive, or a mix of both, and explain that clearly to residents?

• Is the current part-time zoning enforcement schedule sufficient, given the volume of issues reported by residents?

• Can regular, anonymized reports be published that show how many inspections, notices, and summonses are issued and in which general areas of town?
  
  

Junkyard Operations and Longstanding Neighbor Dispute

Resident Carol Thompson again addressed the Committee regarding the junkyard across from her home. She cited language from the township’s junkyard ordinance and a Land Use Board resolution stating that junk, scrap, and unregistered vehicles must be kept within the enclosed area of the yard and that operations in front of the fence are not permitted as an expansion of the nonconforming use.

She argued that vehicles and scrap are being stored and displayed outside the fence and provided photographs as examples. Thompson explained that she has spent considerable time and money pursuing enforcement through the Land Use Board and Superior Court and believes the township is failing to enforce existing determinations. She stated that the property was visually buffered and compliant for decades and that conditions worsened after the current operator expanded activity toward the front of the lot.

The Township Attorney responded that the photos show vehicles on flatbeds that appear to be moving in and out of the yard rather than being stored in rows as an outdoor junkyard. In his view, this activity is consistent with operating a junkyard behind the fence and transporting vehicles through the entrance. He said the township has done what it can to enforce existing orders and that some complaint paths run through the courts rather than the Committee.

Committeewoman Desiree Mora Dillon commented that the junkyard planted trees and installed fencing and that, from her daily observations, the front area appears compliant. She also noted that another nearby property has unregistered vehicles and suggested that complaints should be consistent if residents are concerned about visual impacts and zoning violations along that stretch of Route 57.

The discussion became tense, and Mayor Watters eventually ended Thompson’s speaking time after repeated disagreement about what the photographs show and how prior resolutions should be interpreted.

Residents should ask:

• Will the township provide a public explanation of how it interprets the junkyard ordinance and the 2015 Land Use Board resolution regarding front yard activity?

• Can an independent review or site visit be conducted, with a written finding shared with both the junkyard operator and neighboring residents?

• How does the township plan to manage repeated disputes where residents believe prior court or board decisions are not being enforced?
  
  

Executive Session and Other Matters

The Committee entered executive session to discuss three matters: contractual issues related to Brantwood Estates, attorney–client privileged communications regarding the proposed delayed traffic light at the intersection of Airport Road and Route 57, and a proposal for a K-9 unit within the Mansfield Township Police Department. No formal action was taken.

After returning to public session, the Committee briefly referenced these topics and noted that potential pending litigation involving the zoning officer had also been discussed during executive session.

Residents should ask:

• When will the Committee be able to share details about the Brantwood Estates contracts, and how might those agreements affect roads, services, or future development in that area?

• What is the township’s position on the delayed traffic light at Airport Road and Route 57, and how will residents be informed about any responses from NJDOT or other agencies?

• What would a K-9 program cost, how would it be funded, and what specific benefits would it provide to Mansfield residents?

• What is the general nature and status of the litigation involving the zoning officer, and how is the township managing legal costs and potential conflicts of interest?

• When will the executive session minutes related to these topics be released, and what criteria will the Committee use to determine when confidentiality is no longer required?
  
  

Concealed Carry Permit Fee Rebate Proposal

During committee comments, a member proposed that Mansfield consider an ordinance refunding one hundred fifty dollars of the two hundred dollar state concealed carry permit fee to applicants, citing the township’s status as a Second Amendment compliant community. He noted that several other New Jersey municipalities have adopted similar measures, returning most of the fee as a way to support lawful permit holders.

The Township Attorney said he would research how other towns have structured these programs and would prepare either an ordinance or a recurring annual resolution for the Committee to review at a future meeting, with an ordinance likely providing more stability.

Residents should ask:

• Which municipalities in New Jersey currently offer concealed carry permit fee rebates, and how have they structured these programs?

• What would be the budget impact if Mansfield refunds one hundred fifty dollars per applicant, and how many permits are issued locally in a typical year?

• Will the township set clear eligibility rules and a simple process so that applicants understand how and when rebates are paid?

Full Meeting Audio

MANSFIELD TOWNSHIP COMMITTEE MEETING

November 25th, 2025 - 7:30pm - 8:30pm

Downloadable Files

Meeting Agenda - Here

Meeting Minutes - Not Yet Approved

Bill List - Here

Mansfield Township Committee Meeting Summary For Residents

*Audio Pending OPRA Fulfillment*

Summary Subject to Change Based on Audio Confirmations