Mayor and Council, one more time, failed to act on the proposed cannabis ordinance blaming the inability on a technicality before also citing they have not made any decisions on recommendations from the planning board for the ordinance.
A stand room only crowd packed Borough Hall for a busy agenda Thursday night, but a revised agenda late in the afternoon noted the ordinance 09-2022 was tabled to a future meeting.
The technicality, which was corrected at last night’s meeting, was the lack of an official record on the introduction of the ordinance in June. The ordinance was introduced June 9 and all council members were present, voting 4-1 with one abstention. However, in approving those minutes at the next meeting no member of council noticed or corrected the fact these actions were not even mentioned, let alone the vote transcribed in the official minutes.
However, Councilman Jon O’Crowley said later in the meeting council could not have acted anyway inasmuch as the planning board had made several recommendations, a statement true only if Council made a decision to adopt any of those recommendations.
There was no indication at last night’s meeting whether council had reviewed the suggestions set up by a planning board subcommittee and forwarded by the planning board last week.
Without a public hearing and the demise of this ordinance, nearly two dozen residents still spoke on cannabis businesses in the borough some for and some opposed to adoption of any ordinance which would permit both the manufacture and retail sale of cannabis.
Two real estate professionals opposed cannabis business on the grounds statistics they cited showed they would result in depreciation of property value. Others said the income produced by businesses would be offset by higher costs necessary for police, public works and other costs; others objected on the grounds the community is too small, any location would be too close to the elementary school, they would draw crowds that would “hang around,” or would encourage more theft since cannabis is largely a cash business.
Speakers in favor of stores and manufacturing offered other statistics showing monetary benefits to towns that permit the business, medical marijuana would be more easily accessible for those in need, health issues are more important than land values, and thefts would not increase since these businesses would be required to have security personnel on premises.
“You have a special town here,” one new resident said, saying he did not want to see any changes in what drew him here with his family.
Mark Fisher, a frequent voice during public portions of the meeting, suggested several changes the council should consider when they write and introduce a new ordinance, pointing to areas the planning board did not address in addition to the recommendations they did make to be considered. He pointed out the planning board did not address signage, specifications on odor emanations, specifics on security cameras, and a clarification on whether persons under 21 years of age are permitted other areas of a mixed use building if cannabis is a permitted use in one portion of it.
Fisher also quoted Councilwoman Lori Hohenleitner’s comments from a previous meeting where she indicated there are elected officials in the borough that consume cannabis products and asked her to identify them. Kira S. Dabby, a lawyer with the Archer Law group in Red Bank with borough attorney Jason Sena, was present at the meeting in Sena’s absence, and advised those on the Council not to respond to the question. Fisher had quoted Hohenleitner as saying her concern was “what is the reasoning behind people being against it? Is it because people don’t want to have to be on-record as consuming these products?” The Council-Woman in saying “people” was referring to a fellow council-members or multiple fellow council-members.
