Land Use Board
February 23, 2026
Minutes
7:00 pm
Municipal Building
Call to Order
Chairman Boland called the meeting to order at 7:00 P. M. with the statement that this meeting is in compliance with the Open Public Meetings Act, Public Law 1975, Chapter 231, Sections 4 and 13, as advertised by Annual Notice. If the applicant is a partnership or corporation, an attorney must represent it. No new applications will be heard after 9:30 P.M. No new testimony will be heard after 10:30 P.M.
Roll Call
Members Present: Mr. Andrews, Mr. Boland, Ms. Erb, Mr. McCaffrey, Mr. Meyer, Mr. Passafaro, and Mr. Weber
Members Absent: Mr. Plock and Ms. Wilcox.
Also Present: Mr. David Brady, Esq., Mr. David Simmons, P.E., and Ms. Alison Kopsco, P.P.
Minutes
Mr. Meyer moved acceptance of the minutes for the January 26, 2026 meeting as posted and waived reading. Ms. Erb second. Roll call vote: In favor, Andrews, Erb, Meyer, Passafaro, and Boland. Opposed: None. So moved.
Correspondence
As shown in agenda.
Resolutions
Fredon Township Land Use Board Resolution and Annual Report Required by BY N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70.1
Mr. Boland stated that everyone should have received a copy of the draft resolution and asked if there were any comments or questions.
Mr. Passafaro made a motion to approve the resolution as written. Mr. McCaffrey second. Roll call vote: In favor, Andrews, Erb, McCaffrey, Meyer, Passafaro, Weber, and Boland. Opposed: None. So moved.
Application #533-2024
Rosendo Vargas Application #533-2024, Block 801, Lot 32.19- Major Soil Fill Permit
Mr. Boland stated that this matter is still currently in court. No updates have been made available.
Application #542-2025
Cellco Partnership dba Verizon Wireless Application #542-2025, Block 402 Lot 2, 2.01- Wireless Tower
Mr. Boland stated that Mr. Frank Ferraro of Ferraro & Stamos, Esq, who is representing this application requested that the application be carried to the March 16, 2026 meeting. Mr. Boland stated that this application will be carried pending proper notice.
Continuation of Cases
Application #533-2024
Rosendo Vargas Application #533-2024, Block 801, Lot 32.19- Major Soil Fill Permit
Mr. Boland stated that this matter is still currently in court. No updates have been made available.
Application #542-2025
Cellco Partnership dba Verizon Wireless Application #542-2025, Block 402 Lot 2, 2.01- Wireless Tower
Mr. Boland stated that Mr. Frank Ferraro of Ferraro & Stamos, Esq, who is representing this application requested that the application be carried to the March 16, 2026 meeting. Mr. Boland stated that this application will be carried pending proper notice.
Hearing of New Cases
Application #538-2025
Geraldo DaSilva Jr Application #538-2025, Block 1409, Lot 15 – Variance
Mr. DaSilva appeared pro se. Mr. Simmons reviewed his completeness report dated August 15, 2025 and identified the following deficiencies: a submission waiver request listing all approvals sought had not been provided; a county application had not been filed, which is required as the property fronts on County Route 519 (Ridge Road); floor plans and elevations prepared by a New Jersey licensed architect had not been submitted; photographs of adjoining properties, an impact evaluation, impervious coverage calculations, a proposed setback table, and a tax map copy had not been provided. Ms. Kopsco, the Board Planner, noted additional variance issues, including insufficient distances between accessory structures on the property. Following discussion, the Board determined that sufficient information had been provided to proceed to hearing. The applicant acknowledged that he had not yet filed the required Sussex County application and agreed to do so following the meeting.
Mr. Andrews made a motion to find the application complete. Mr. Passafaro second. Roll call vote: In favor, Andrews, Erb, McCaffrey, Meyer, Passafaro, Weber, and Boland. Opposed: None. So moved.
Mr. DaSilva was sworn in by Mr. Brady and testified regarding the nature of the application. Mr. DaSilva stated that he constructed a 20-foot by 40-foot carport in the front yard of his property without first obtaining a zoning permit, believing that no permit was required for the structure. He stated that he is a finish carpenter who does obtain permits for work performed for clients but did not believe a permit was required for the carport because no one would be living in it. Mr. DaSilva testified that he followed the existing fence line when positioning the carport, which he assumed coincided with the property boundary. After the carport was constructed, a survey revealed that the fence was located inside the property line at an angle, resulting in the carport encroaching approximately one foot onto adjacent lot and pavers associated with the carport encroach approximately 1’6”. Mr. DaSilva testified that the neighboring property owner agreed and executed an easement to address the encroachments, which has been recorded with the Sussex County Clerk in Book 10389 of Deeds, Page 20. The zoning officer subsequently notified Mr. DaSilva that the carport was not permitted in the front yard and directed him to file a variance application.
Mr. Simmons testified that the carport is located approximately 51 feet from the Ridge Road right-of-way, while the existing dwelling is set back 80.8 feet, confirming the carport is situated in the front yard. Mr. Simmons also noted that three additional sheds are located on the property. With respect to impervious coverage, Mr. Simmons calculated existing coverage at approximately 26.5 percent, which exceeds the R-1 zone maximum of 25 percent; a variance for impervious coverage may therefore also be required. Mr. Simmons further identified deficiencies in the recorded easement document, including an incorrect designation of Block 1409, Lot 15 as the servient rather than dominant estate, and the absence of Exhibit A from the recorded instrument. Mr. Brady confirmed that a corrective easement would need to be filed. An existing asphalt driveway encroachment of 0.6 feet onto Lot 16 was also identified as not being covered by the current easement.
Mr. DaSilva was asked by Board members why he chose the front yard location for the carport rather than a conforming location toward the rear of the property. Mr. DaSilva stated that he did not want to take up space in the backyard. Board members noted that no physical hardship prevented placement in the rear yard and that the property appeared to have adequate space for a conforming accessory structure.
Mr. Boland opened the meeting up to the public for questions.
Lawrence Lawson, 420 Route 94, appeared as a member of the public to ask questions of the witnesses regarding the rationale for zoning restrictions on front-yard structures. Ms. Kopsco explained that such restrictions serve aesthetic purposes and preserve the character of the existing neighborhood. Mr. Brady confirmed that the Board may grant variances upon a proper showing of hardship or superior planning alternatives under the applicable criteria.
Following the close of public questioning, the Board deliberated. The Board found that the applicant did not demonstrate the requisite hardship for variance relief, noting that feasible alternative locations exist on the property that would conform to setback requirements, that the applicant is a contractor with experience obtaining building permits and was aware of permit requirements, and that the carport was placed in its current location based solely on the applicant’s personal preference rather than any physical or legal constraint. The Board further noted that the encroachment onto the neighboring property and the impervious coverage excess compounded the concerns with the current location.
Mr. Meyer moved to deny the variance request for DaSilva Application #538-2025. Mr. Weber second. Roll call vote: In favor, Andrews, Erb, McCaffrey, Meyer, Passafaro, Weber, and Boland. Opposed: None. So moved..
Mr. Boland advised Mr. DaSilva that the denial would not be final until a resolution is adopted at the next meeting, anticipated in March 2026. He directed Mr. DaSilva to coordinate with the zoning officer regarding a reasonable compliance timeline for removal of the carport. The Board also noted that once the carport and associated pavers are removed and the area is restored to lawn, the impervious coverage issue may be resolved without the need for a separate variance, depending upon the results of accurate calculations to be prepared by a licensed land surveyor.
Application #541-2025
Jeffrey & Vivian Coulson Application #541-2025, Block 1002, Lot 18- Variance
Rich Wenner, Esq. of Lavery, Selvaggi, and Cohen, PC. appeared on behalf of applicants Jeffrey and Vivian Coulson, owners of Block 1002, Lot 18, 164 Willows Road. Mr. Wenner advised that the applicants are seeking variance relief for the construction of a 9,600 square foot enclosed horse-riding pavilion on the property. He stated that the application involves two D1 use variances — one for the horse riding pavilion structure, which is not a permitted use in the R-6 residential zone, and one for the boarding of horses for non-family members, which is similarly not a permitted use as proposed — as well as C variances for building height (21 feet proposed versus a 16-foot maximum) and accessory structure floor area (9,600 square feet proposed versus a 1,500 square foot maximum). Mr. Wenner advised that seven horses are currently present on the property, of which five are owned by the property owners and two are boarded horses belonging to outside parties.
Mr. Simmons reviewed the completeness report dated January 21, 2026. He confirmed receipt of the permission letter, revised variance plan, and deed. He noted that floor plans, elevations, an impact evaluation, and information regarding parking, lighting, landscaping, signs, and disposal containers had not been separately provided, but that the applicant had responded that either these items were not proposed or would be addressed through testimony. Mr. Simmons recommended that the application be found complete, with the applicant to provide supporting testimony regarding the waiver items.
Mr. Brady confirmed that proof of service and publication had been submitted and found in order.
Mr. Meyer moved to find Coulson Application #541-2025 complete. Mr. Passafaro second. Roll call vote: In favor, Andrews, Erb, McCaffrey, Meyer, Passafaro, Weber, and Boland. Opposed: None. So moved.
Kenneth Wentick, P.E., P.L.S., of Wentick & Associates, 30 Old Clove Road, was sworn in by Mr. Brady and accepted as an expert professional engineer. Mr. Wentick testified that the proposed 80-foot by 120-foot pavilion would be located to the northeast of the existing house, approximately 30 feet from the rear property line and approximately 180 to 190 feet from the nearest neighboring residences to the rear of the property. He testified that the site was selected due to the relatively flat topography in that area and because it overlays the existing outdoor riding ring, minimizing site disturbance. He stated that no parking areas, exterior lighting, signs, or driveway changes are proposed in order to maintain the rural and low-key character of the property. Mr. Wentick testified that manure would be collected by wheelbarrow, temporarily stored in the existing barn near the road, and spread across the rear field periodically as fertilizer. With respect to stormwater management, Mr. Wentick agreed to increase the width of the proposed stone-filled infiltration trench to 4.5 feet, as recommended by Mr. Simmons, to achieve the required storage volume and bring the system into compliance. Mr. Wentick further testified that the pavilion would be constructed by Ephraim Zook, an Amish builder who constructs pole-barn style structures. An exhibit consisting of six sheets depicting the proposed structure, designated A-101, was marked and entered into evidence.
Megan Coulson, of 92 State Park Road, Frelinghuysen, daughter of the property owners, was sworn in by Mr. Brady and testified regarding the operations of the horse riding business. Ms. Coulson stated that she manages all horse-related and business operations on the property. She testified that she currently has approximately 10 to 12 clients, serves one to two riders per day, and operates approximately three to four days per week, Monday through Saturday, during normal daytime hours of approximately 8:00 A.M. to 4:00 or 5:00 P.M. She stated that no nighttime operations are planned, no exterior lighting is proposed, and that clients attend by invitation only, with no more than one client present at a time. Ms. Coulson stated that the indoor pavilion would allow year-round riding, as the outdoor ring is currently unusable in winter when frozen or snow-covered. She testified that the five horses owned by her parents are cared for by her, and that two boarded horses belonging to outside parties are also on the property. She confirmed that no horses belonging to outside clients are brought to the property for lessons. Ms. Coulson testified regarding manure management, stating that material in the riding ring is picked up immediately, paddocks are cleaned weekly, and manure is spread across the field every one to two years as fertilizer. Feed is stored in sealed metal containers. No water line is proposed for the pavilion, as horses will not be stabled inside. Ms. Coulson described the proposed building as having gray and stone-colored wooden siding to match the existing house and a grayish-black standing seam metal roof. Ventilation would be provided by operable windows and two ten-foot-wide doors, one at each end of the structure. The interior floor would remain natural dirt consistent with the existing outdoor ring. Ms. Coulson stated that no loudspeakers, amplification equipment, or bullhorns would be used, and that the business is not intended to grow significantly in scale.
Jeffrey Coulson, one of the property owners, was sworn in and testified that the riding ring footing is stone dust with sand on top, rendering hoofbeats very quiet. He stated that he believes the enclosed wooden structure would reduce dust migration to neighboring properties during dry summer months and would likely attenuate rather than amplify sound compared to the existing open-air conditions.
John McDonough, P.P., AICP, was sworn in by Mr. Brady and accepted as an expert professional planner. Mr. McDonough testified in support of the application, referencing Planner Report No. 2, dated November 17, 2025 and revised February 12, 2026. He described the property as approximately 12 acres in an R-6 zone requiring a minimum of 6 acres, providing ample spatial capacity for the proposed use. He testified that the property is already developed as a horse farm with existing paddocks and a riding ring, and that the proposed pavilion is essentially an enclosure over the existing ring, located at the rear of the property in a manner appropriate to the site. Mr. McDonough testified that total lot coverage with the pavilion would be approximately 3.4 percent, well below the 20 percent ordinance maximum. He testified that the site is well-buffered by mature woodland and rising terrain on multiple sides, and that the proposed use advances planning goals for the general welfare, a desirable visual environment, and the efficient use of land as a retrofit of existing equestrian infrastructure. He testified that the proposed use is consistent with the rural character of the township as reflected in the master plans from 1975 through 2023. A photograph of the property taken by Mr. McDonough on the day of the hearing, designated A-102, was marked and entered into evidence.
The Chairman opened the meeting to the public for questions of the witnesses. Jennifer Moore, 179 Willows Road, appeared and suggested that the applicant consider using an FM communication system allowing the instructor to use a small microphone and the rider to use an earpiece, which could reduce the need to project her voice during lessons. Ms. Coulson indicated willingness to use such a system. There were no other members of the public present to offer comment.
The Board deliberated and reached consensus that the application should be approved. The Board agreed that an acoustical engineering report was not required as a condition, finding that the enclosed wooden structure and distance to neighboring properties would not result in any meaningful increase in noise impacts over existing conditions. The Board identified the following conditions of approval: (1) operations shall be conducted by invitation only, with a maximum of one client on the property at a time; (2) operations shall be limited to daylight hours and shall not extend into nighttime; (3) no exterior lighting shall be installed on the pavilion; (4) no loudspeakers, amplification equipment, signs, or additional parking areas shall be installed without further Board approval; (5) any material change in the scale or nature of operations shall require the applicant to return to the Board for modification of the variance; (6) evergreen trees shall be planted along the rear property line as supplemental year-round screening, with the species, size, and location to be determined in consultation with Mr. Simmons following construction; (7) the stormwater infiltration trench shall be widened to 4.5 feet in accordance with Mr. Simmons’s recommendation; (8) an as-built survey shall be provided upon completion of construction; and (9) all applicable outside agency approvals shall be obtained, including from the Fredon Township Construction Official, Sussex County Soil Conservation District, and Sussex County driveway and site distance committee.
Mr. Andrews moved to approve Coulson Application #541-2025 subject to the stated conditions. Mr. Meyer second. Roll call vote: In favor, Andrews, Erb, McCaffrey, Meyer, Passafaro, Weber, and Boland. Opposed: None. So moved.
Mr. Passafaro recused himself due to a conflict of interest as the applicant is his neighbor.
Application # 544-2025
Mark DiGeronimo Application # 544-2025, Block 104, Lot 10.03- Variance
The applicant was not present this evening. The applicant had previously requested that the matter be carried, and proof of notice had been provided. The application is carried to the March 16, 2026 meeting without the need for further notice.
Other Business
Open Permit Checklist
The Board discussed a proposal to add a certification requirement to the land use application checklist requiring applicants to confirm whether they have any open or unresolved construction permits on their property, similar to the existing requirement to certify payment of property taxes. It was noted that more than one hundred open permits are believed to exist in the Township, some for several years, with the result that certain property improvements have not been assessed for tax purposes. The Board agreed that such a certification should be added to the checklist. The process would require the applicant to complete a certification form, which would then be verified by the Construction Official. Mr. Brady will review a draft form this week. Because any amendment to the official checklist requires adoption by ordinance, the Board Secretary was asked to undertake a comprehensive review and update of the entire application and checklist for further deliberation and ultimate formal adoption.
Liaison Reports
Environmental Committee
No Meeting. No Report.
Township Committee
Mr. Weber reported that he met recently with the Mayor and Mr. Boland to discuss several pending ordinance items. The items identified for action include: an update to the cannabis ordinance to improve setback provisions from residential uses; a livestock ordinance, for which the Township requested a redlined version showing proposed changes; a junk and inoperable vehicles ordinance raised by the Mayor; and a shipping container and sea container ordinance, for which a draft has been prepared by Mr. Brady and will now be reviewed with Township authorization.
Adjourn
There being no further business before the Board, a motion was made to adjourn at 9:27 P.M. All in favor. So moved.
Respectfully submitted,
Alexandra Usinowicz
Land Use Board Secretary
