5/19/26 Land use Board Meeting

Don't put it in your mind because I'll
take it by
everybody.
Like to call the meeting in order.
>> To the flag of the United States of
America and to the republic for which it
stands. One nation under God,
indivisible, with liberty and justice
for all.
All right.
This meeting was has been properly
advertised and posted in accordance with
the public law 75 chapter 231. And I
would like to ask Donna if she could put
that into the minutes, please.
>> Yes.
>> Roll call. Donna.
>> Mayor Chimpetti
>> here.
>> Mr. Timbers. Mr. Guard
>> here.
>> Mr. Walker
>> here.
>> Mr. Mulleno
>> here. Mrs. Torres
>> here.
>> Mr. Frick
>> here.
>> Mr. Peterson
>> here.
>> Mr. Dennis
>> present.
>> Uh, I need an appro motion for the
minutes of April 28th, 2026.
>> Motion second.
>> Excuse me. I had a question about that.
Uh, at our last meeting, we we weren't
finished with that application and I
think John had to review it whether or
not how he was going to vote. Was that
correct? I think he rescended his
>> he rescended
>> withdrew the application.
>> He withdrew the application.
>> Oh, he did. Oh, okay. Cuz I looked in
the minutes and I didn't see anything.
Oh, should that be in the minutes or No,
that he rescended.
>> You can certainly enter the uh the
letter that was forwarded to
>> Oh, I just didn't see in the minutes.
So, that's why I asked his question.
Okay.
>> That letter I think was sent, wasn't it,
Don? It was sent to everybody. That
letter, wasn't it?
>> I I don't think I got it. I was just
looking at the minutes and I didn't see
Is that because he's going to come back
late at a later date?
>> Yes.
>> Okay.
>> Now, would it explain in the minutes
what would happen if someone listened to
the tape and if it wasn't
>> Hi, Carl.
>> Okay.
Uh All right. We have a motion on
the floor. Uh all in favor?
>> I
>> opposed.
Okay. Carry on.
Uh there is no resolutions tonight and
it's new business. Review the amendment
to the redevelopment plan for the
gateway rehabilitation area.
>> Yeah, Ryan. So I think uh all of you got
a copy of a summary from city
solicitor's office. They prepared the
amendments. Uh to give a little back
history, this is the gateway site, the
former Acme site. Um we've had a
redevelopment plan on that site for
better part of 20 years now. Um it's
been amended numerous times. The last
amendment was um in 2017 for a used auto
dealer mall great Persia. Um and at that
point we amended uh the permitted uses
in the zone to allow for a used auto
dealer mall with increased parking
intensity. Um the city is now entering a
redevelopment agreement um with a
redeveloper uh to use a facility or use
utilize the existing building um to
rehabilitate it and use it as cannabis
cultivation and or manufacturing. Um in
their redevelopment plan they requested
um that they be potentially permitted to
allow or to permitted to um have retail
cannabis at the front of the facility.
Uh the city only has two licenses. So
they kind of said like in the event
we're able to acquire the high the
highway commercial license, we would
like for it to be able to be used at
this site. Um so that uh is one of the
amendments that was included in the
redevelopment plan. Um some minor things
addressing um setbacks. No additional
improve covered on the site is
essentially that they have. Um but yeah,
it's overall it's a relatively a minor
amendment to the plan. The biggest
change being allowing counties
manufacturing and cultivation which
would otherwise not be permitted in
highway commercial zone or in the
current redevelopment plan.
>> Brian, did they get a um a resolution
from council sanctioning that the
council is okay with them having a
retail there?
>> Yeah. So the the last amendment to the
redevelopment plan which was introduced
at the prior council meeting um that's
why we're we're referred here
essentially. So council
>> I'm not talking about the cannabis
growing.
>> Sure.
>> I'm talking about the retail. They
actually got a resolution from council
saying that the council's okay.
>> The resolution at the last council
meeting approved those amendments. Um
well again not approved but introduced
because it has to this has to be done by
ordinance. So, council, the last um
ordinance introduction that was done
included that retail in the front as
part of
>> Well, that's going to be a problem
because
>> that could be amended.
>> No, that's going to be a problem because
the Jeff Angelone wants to put he has a
resolution from council
>> stating and he just recently called me
like last week asking me what the status
was.
>> Sure.
>> That's going to cause a big problem for
him because I would rather see one at
the VAWA site
>> than over at the AI site. I don't agree
with that at all.
>> Well, I mean, it's got to go back to to
council for adoption.
>> Was that meeting?
>> I I don't recall.
>> I think that was
>> we had already
the one at Wawwa. Correct. We already
>> did came before the plan.
>> Right. They came in with a full site
plan, but the the license wasn't
available, so they weren't actually able
to move forward with the project. Um, so
yeah, I mean I
>> because that's silly. First of all, you
have the other one, Medley. What what's
the other one on the plate? Um
>> Atlantic Flower is one flower is like
right there. That's
>> Well, so that this this does not create
an additional license. Would
>> I know? I know. I know.
>> Yeah. They wanted to amend it just in
case.
>> Would they have some sort of legal
standing statement? If
>> who who's that would
>> these people here
>> would uh
>> if we write that into their the
redevelopment plan, would they have more
>> my position? And
this is why uh I love what I do because
it's like Jeopardy. uh you never know
what you're going to get hit with. But
my position with that would be that uh
for the redevelopment plan that is
ultimately
uh referred to council for council's
approval is that it does not include
retail
>> for two reasons. Uh first as we said
stand here today there isn't a license
available. So that that's the first
thing. Why are you going to approve
something that doesn't have a
possibility at this point?
>> Uh number two is because of what uh
mayor just indicated that there's
already someone in the process of
getting an approval for a different
site. So, uh, my suggestion would be
that, uh, you know, you proceed with
your, uh, the amendments to the
redevelopment plan as, uh, Brian has
already set forth. But then going
forward
um you know it could be 2 years, 3
years, four years down the line if the
city wanted to if there was a demand
there if you wanted to increase the
number of licenses or if they wanted to
obtain a license from one of the other
sites. Uh they could then petition uh
council and the board to amend the
redevelopment plan to allow it. It would
be much easier to do it that way as
opposed to putting the genie back in the
bottle the other way.
>> I agree with you.
>> That's
>> I mean we would just on the city end a
site right by the Wawa would make a
whole lot more money than where he wants
to put it where where the acne is
for retail. I mean think about it. It's
a no-brainer.
we get 2% of those sales
>> and it's really not fair to the other
owner.
>> It's not.
>> So, if the board would like, you can
make a recommendation back to council
that um you feel that all the proposals
are appropriate with the exception of
allowing um retail cannabis as a
permitted use on the site. Um and then
council can amend the ordinance before
adopting it or they could refer it back
for consideration or any number of
possibilities. But um you know if that's
uh the board's opinion that way and
refer back to council.
>> Um
so I guess before we make a decision one
of the things is is that comes with
retail is a consumption area. So some
people have started consumption lounges.
I think the locations that we currently
have, I don't think a lounge would be
permissible. And considering that there
is a number of residents that live in
subsidized housing where consumption is
not legal and they jeopardize their
housing just if they use cannabis, if
they smoke cannabis at those locations.
Um, sometimes a consumption area may be
necessary
and the current locations that we have,
I don't know if they can accommodate
that.
I'll put that out there.
>> Well, do you want people driving to this
site? If it became a retail site, you
want driving to this site using the
consumption and then getting back in
their car and driving home.
>> Yeah. Consumption areas are they have a
whole host of problems attached.
>> Yeah.
from what I heard a whole host of
problems.
>> I don't know that it's the city's
responsibility to provide a consumption
area. I mean,
>> yeah, I don't like that.
>> I want beer, but you're not going to
provide me a consumption area for that
either. So,
>> right.
>> Um,
but I do have a a question. We're
already zoned for one in highway
business and one on what's that?
>> Yeah. So, this this wouldn't change the
city's license at all. one in the retail
commercial which is the former bank
building in corner of Argo and then
there's one in the highway commercial
which is Atlantic Flower which is down
maybe a block and a half or so from the
AC. So this wouldn't add another
license. It wouldn't obligate the city
to provide another license. It would
provide um the site owner the
opportunity to if they could acquire the
existing license or if the city were to
create a future another license in the
future, they could use that license here
as opposed to coming back to have to
amend the redevelopment plan again.
Essentially, they wanted to be in a
position to be ready for if they could
acquire a license or if the city opened
another license
>> or theoretically buy Atlantic Flower and
move it there.
>> Sure. Exactly. or or if the city
tomorrow decided, hey, we want to
increase from one on the highway
commercial to three. If they're going to
have to come back in here to to amend
their redevelopment plan and do all
that, they're going to be behind
everybody else who has a site on the
waiver,
>> as they should be.
>> I I'm not saying right or wrong. I'm
just, you know,
>> how do you choose between the two?
>> How do you choose? because they came in
front of the board I don't know six or
eight months ago the one next to Wawa
>> and we did approve whatever they needed
to based on another license becoming
available.
>> So we actually approved another site as
well one of the liquor stores um the one
that just opened the one that reopened
across from next to our laws that one
because remember they both came in on
the same night and there was some
discussion about who would approve when.
We said whoever had their stuff in order
first would get the
>> correct, but we still approved the site
plan and and the use. They're just they
have no license. So if the city opened
up their license, presumably they would
be first in line because they already
have full sight plan approved for the
cannabis cannabis retail business.
>> So yeah,
>> Mr. Ch.
>> Yes.
>> All right. I'm going to throw a monkey
wrench in the works.
>> No, you're not.
>> Yes, I am.
And this is just my opinion with all due
respect to everybody up here. Uh this
facility belongs in the industrial park.
Okay? Now, I realize and I understand
that there's money to be made by the
city because it's free money. You don't
have to do anything but host the
facility.
Okay? So, uh it's too much of a good
thing. And look at Atlantic City now.
they're saturated with these
establishments and now none of them can
grow any further because it it's
diluted. So, you know, I I get it. You
know, it's it's generating revenue and I
understand that and there's city
leaders, you know, we're supposed to do
things like that, but you're grabbing
for the lowhanging fruit here. Okay. Is
this what you want it to look like when
you go into the city? You know, we're
already embarrassed to have people drive
down the White Horse Pike, what they
see, the gateway coming in. And I'm not
going to go through the the litany of
problems that's on the White Horse Pike,
but I don't think this this enhances the
city or gives the city the image that I
would like to see the future residents
be able to take advantage of. And I and
I know these people want to do this, but
and this is just again, this is my
opinion and two things that I got a
problem with is these developers. Number
one is the site at the Wawwa site. Now,
I know we're probably not supposed to
talk about it, but th this guy came in
here and he stated at the meeting, we
know that it's not approved, but we're
going to spend the money to get the site
plan approved so that if we get the
license, boom, we're ready to move in.
Okay. So, now time passes and all of a
sudden it's ready to go. And now it you
you kind of feel obligated, okay,
a little bit because this guy spent all
this money. So yeah, well, we'd like to
have another Lisa. I don't think you
need another retail in any part.
>> We're not saying that, Jack.
>> No, no, I know. But but but the way that
they go about it is if there's
>> these guys are are carpet baggers. The
guy that is buying this property, he
could care about a harbor city to bits.
Okay. He sees an opportunity to buy a an
undeveloped piece of property that's
been sitting for a long time and he's
getting it for a bargain. He don't know
what he wants to put there. He don't
care what he wants to put there. He's
throwing stuff up against the wall to
see what'll stick.
>> Are you talking about the Walmart guy
back?
>> No, I'm talking about the the the acne
site.
>> Oh yeah.
>> James Mallen, the guy that came in last,
>> whoever he was, you know, with all that
bravado and and big noise or whatever.
He probably don't even own the property
because they're not going to spend a
dime on anything that they don't think
is going to be a for sure thing. The
property is sat there 20 years. We've
been through this exercise five times at
least on this piece of property.
>> The the only thing that ever came even
close to working out was Ray Persia who
spent a bunch of money on that building
to rehabilitate it and make the property
desirable to somebody and was the car
lot, you know, the ideal thing there.
Well, I think it would have been better
than than than cannabis manufacturing.
>> So now the the property has sat there
unmaintained. They never finished the
building. They threw a coat of paint on
it. All the eaves and everything. The
building has not been sealed. It's not
tied in. They started to do stone work
on it. They quit doing that and just
slapped a set of paint on it. They're
parking trucks in there. They're using
the property for business purposes. Now,
code enforcement should be able to go
over there and do something or make them
make the building rehabilitate the
building so that you can get a CO for
it. They sit on their hands and then
when you push them, they got to do
something, you get a bunch of noise like
this guy made the other night. So again,
this is just my opinion and I'm only one
vote, but I'm against this.
>> You know, Jack, I don't disagree with
the majority of the things that you had
to say about the site or different
things. I mean, but I think you can
learn some lessons. I think the real
problem
is that these businesses come in and you
don't insist upon them bringing the
building to a better condition and
insisting that they have to put money
into the building. I've seen buildings
that have been tore down or buildings in
other communities that they've taken and
rehabilitated and you take a look at
them, there's nothing wrong with what
the building ends up being. Take a look
at Seek and what they did with the old
hardware store and some of the others.
Take a look in Berlin with what they did
with up there with that building up
there. They tore up to it down and
rebuilt it. The problem is that people
come in here and they're told that they
have to do certain things and then the
board says, "Well, we're going to cut
them some slack here. We're not going to
make them do here. We're not going to
make them do there." The guy down here,
perfect example, when I was in council,
the guy who has the old boat company was
supposed to put sidewalks and trees in.
I still don't see no damn trees. the guy
who bought the car wash or the the
junkyard over on Atlantic Avenue was
supposed to put trees and sidewalks
here. I don't see a damn thing. But yet
another business comes in and the board
just lets them go. We don't insist on it
doing what they're supposed to. The
problem is not that the businesses come
in and want to put something there. The
problem is that the board doesn't insist
that they bring it up to standards and
make it a decent building. There's
nothing wrong with taking a building
that's that's not going to be something
that it intended to be an acronym. If
somebody comes in and you make them put
the money into it, an improvement, it's
an improvement for the community. I'm
not saying that every building should be
>> Yeah. But it's not it's not a board
problem because we
>> It is a board because you're the one who
has to insist when they submit the
plans, either you accept what they're
going to do or you don't accept it. And
you don't give them a CEO or not a CEO,
but you don't give an approval until
they they do the improvements.
>> Yeah. But when it leaves this board,
it's out of our hands on enforcement or
or code enforcement and all that. And
>> but then when the second one comes in,
Jack, you let them go get away with it,
too.
>> Well, wait a I hear what you're saying,
Ed, but you know,
>> I don't know how many times I sat here
and I asked for sidewalks and there was
other people that asked for sidewalks.
>> But if you don't have the majority, you
don't get the sidewalks. Everybody
Everybody votes, then we'll let them.
There was a condition on the sidewalks
at the boat works
>> uh that was triggered by how many
tenants?
>> Yeah. And now he's the whole building is
taken over by one tenant. So, it should
have been done. He's he's gotten away.
Look, if you didn't want him to do it,
when the state fixed up the the White
Horse Pike, you could insisted that the
sidewalks and stuff go in there. I'm not
criticizing you or anybody in Sticker
Jack. I'm just saying is that these are
businesses. You can't dict dictate to
somebody what kind of business they want
to put there. But what you can dictate
is you're going to improve the building,
you're going to bring it up to 100%.
You're going to make it a first test
building or you're not going to get the
approval. If you want to spend the money
to bring it to what we want as
standards, that's fine. But you got to
say these are going to be our standards.
And if you're not going to do them, have
the gumption to say no. You're willing
to say no because you don't want
another. And I don't disagree with that
there's oversaturation. I see what goes
with Atlantic City and talk to people
down there all the time. And yeah,
there's too many of them. But other
communities have come in and allowed
these things to come in and they've
insisted that they improve the building
or they don't get the approval. And here
too many times people come in, say
they're going to do it, and they walk
away. And you know what? They can't get
a CO. If they don't bring the thing and
do the stuff, they can't get a CO. And
the planning board can insist that they
meet those standards or they don't get
their CO.
>> I think that's happening. It should
>> Well, it's it's they're getting away
with it.
>> It stalls when it gets away.
>> Well, but they can insist on it.
>> So I I can say bringing it back to this.
>> One second. One just give me one second.
>> Sure. Sorry. What brings up into my mind
is Eurosports.
>> Now Eurosports came here.
>> Yes.
>> And there was a couple of us here that
said we want sidewalks.
>> It's not a business like any other
business in the industrial park. You
have the public coming there. You have
kids coming there.
>> Yep.
>> The whole there was only I think there
was two of us that said, "Let's have
sidewalks." Everybody else was was okay
with not having sidewalks. Now that
guy's been in business here for 23
years, I think it was, right?
>> He just sold recently, but
>> yes, I know he did.
>> But the people they would not got away
with in Hamilton, Hamilton would have
never let him get away with it.
>> And he knows how to I'm sorry. But no, I
I agree with you, Ed, that that we
should have a certain amount a certain
kind of standards that we stick with,
but the whole board has to be on board
or
>> we're we're just, you know,
>> you got to get get over this feeling
sorry for every one of them. I mean,
listen, they're business doing business.
That's the price of doing business. You
either put the sidewalks in or
>> or whatever the improvements are. I
>> I don't think it's anybody feeling sorry
yet. I think people have their own
opinion. Everybody across this board has
different backgrounds, different
professional expertise, and they see
things slightly differently. And we
discuss it and sometimes, and I'll be
the first one to say, I would not want a
single bush or tree in front of that
building on Route 30, the old boat
works, because they're not going to
maintain the bushes. So, no bush looks
better than horrible looking bushes.
>> The tree growing up through the
>> and the sidewalk has no purpose. It goes
to nowhere. And we did put a term in
place. The board agreed on it. And
listen, if you want to bash the people
who are going to make these decisions,
just keep in mind you, you know,
everybody came with their own opinion.
They based it off of whatever they felt
was best for the city at the time. And
to sit there and say that we feel sorry
for people and we give them whatever
they want. I I agree with you, John,
because I think that I think that we
wrestle every project pretty well,
>> and there's a lot of, you know, sidewalk
stuff and talk like that, but we put
conditions on there, and you're talking
about a couple of them here now. Once it
leaves the board, how is the board going
to Donna is not going to go out and and
be a code enforcement officer? And she
doesn't have any help right now. I don't
know they've hired any code enforcement,
but once it leaves here, it's up to the
city department, the the the code
enforcement officer to go out there and
and write violations and write summones.
And that just has not happened.
>> But when they come back the second time
and they haven't fulfilled the first,
then that's when you say you got to
fulfill
>> the prop the property sold feeling sorry
for people
>> to a new a new owner and they come in
and and uh and and it happens all the
time. the the new owner doesn't know
what the old owner had signed up for and
the new the old owner doesn't tell him,
well, you know, you got to have a trash
enclosure and all that. That was part of
my site plan approval and it didn't get
done. And he comes in there and he's
like, well, I I didn't know all that. I
mean, that's not that's not our problem.
So, but it puts him in a bind, too. It
puts the new owner in a binding, too.
>> What you said, Jack, is the majority of
time what the problem is. What they need
to do is not pass on to the new buyer.
>> Yeah. But as far as this applicant goes,
I agree. I think council needs to
rethink this, to Jack's point, this
isn't a location where we want an
additional growth facility or anything
else to do with the cannabis world. We
have two cannabis retail stores. We have
other growth facilities. And there's
other properties outside of the, you
know, your main street of Route 30 and
and Philadelphia Avenue to put a
facility like that. And if council wants
to, you know, consider other areas, but
I don't think that's the right place.
And I, my personal opinion, opinion is
you should go back to council to
reconsider all of it, 100% of it, not
just the the retail. I'm talking to grow
everything. That's not what we need
there. We need something there, but I'm
not willing to to to cast my vote on
shortsightedness to say we'll take
anything we could get now and then be
upset that we could have had something
better later. We've waited 20 years for
something better. What's another year?
What's another 20?
>> The real The reality is that
>> the reality is no one will be around if
if you if your town cannot sur survive.
There's things that are coming. Taxes
are going up. The county we haven't even
seen with the county taxes going up,
school taxes, everything. There's it's
like there's no end in sight. But if as
far as the town, how that affects us is
that businesses do not want to come here
unless there are incentives for them.
But but most incentives, people have
also decided, oh, let's not give that.
Let's not even do the incentives. So, we
have businesses um that will not come,
that could be attracted to to a hybrid
city, but won't come.
I don't I don't think they're saying I
think they're trying to say they want
something better and people will come,
>> but I think they're saying that they
just don't want a growth facility there,
but they're willing to to work with
other people under certain conditions.
>> We've improved this site for many, many
other.
>> Not that this board isn't unwilling to
to be reasonable, but
>> I've been here. I've been here. I know
>> there's certain things that you don't
want on your
>> on your home opener.
So just to be clear,
>> we do not Jack, just to address you, we
don't want another retail. We
>> already lost one.
>> What if the flower place on the way Pike
fails that will be
open for someone else. It's not that we
want to add another one to Waw Wa. So
that's not what it's about. And we have
three groweries or cultivation. We have
uh Dr. Troy. We have one greenhouse at
the industrial and 1401 Braymond Avenue.
I'm not sure how much money they bring
in because they're pretty much new
except for 1401.
>> Yeah, that's operational.
>> So, if there's a question that the
retail uh the
Atlantic Flower or whatever, if there's
a question that that they may may not be
successful, why are we entertaining
another one? Right. Right in that area.
But I personally think a Waw Wa one
would be very lucrative. But that's just
my opinion.
>> What's with the grow over by the
railroad tracks?
>> That's not operational yet. They're
still doing
approvals yet. And that's that is I
believe considered a micro railroad.
It's less than 2,000.
>> And then Charles
>> Yeah, he's in the industrial market.
There's only one operational at the
moment. There's interest from Troy.
There is an individual trying to move
forward in the industrial park. There's
interest at this site and then there's
the micro at 23 lag. Um we previously
approved another micro grow at the same
building you were referencing earlier. I
don't know that they ever moved in or
constructed there. Did they do
>> is that Jean Charles?
>> No, this is um at the corner of Raymond
Whiters Pike that building.
>> Oh yeah. 16002 W.
Did they we micro was approved in there?
Did they move forward or
>> he has building permits and they've been
working on building?
>> They're moving forward but they're not
operation.
>> No.
>> So at this point there's only one
operational
>> 1401 Raymond.
>> Yeah. It's um the old it was designed.
>> Yeah. It's designed as three small
suites. Originally they were just
renting one unit and now they to
essentially take it apart all three.
But that's that's the only one that's
operational in the city.
>> That was plumbing.
>> Yes.
>> Um but to to bring it back to this site
and to to address Mr. Do's concerns
here, the board actually approved pretty
comprehensive site plan um and building
plan and he presented architectural
elevations uh for this site that the
gentleman came in in 2017. He just
didn't have enough money. So he started
with the stone facade. He started making
roof repairs. He started ripping up
sidewalks and doing other things. any
random money um ended up having to sell
the site to another developer. Um the
gentleman that appeared here at the last
meeting is the current owner of the
site. He is not the proposer of this. He
is under contract with another company
who would be uh the cannabis cultivator.
What I understand they're like a larger
national company. Um so it's not it's
not him. He would be getting I don't
know if he'd be leasing the property or
selling it to him. Uh but
>> well like Jack said it's carpet bag in
there.
>> Yeah. Yes, they don't live here. That's
for sure.
>> All they're getting is a check in the
mail every month. That's why he doesn't
pick up his trash. That's why the place
looks like it looks because he doesn't
care.
>> Yeah. I I just want to make a
distinction that the current redeveloper
is not Jim.
>> There's another another party that the
city has been engaged with in the
redevelopment. He's the current owner.
He's not the perspective redeveloper.
>> So, I just want to make sure that that
separation.
So Jim, who came in here last week, he's
a gentleman that's been maintaining and
has a status quo which we're all
maintain
ing.
I think we were all upset when he came
in last week because we weren't
expecting him to show up and
>> and the grass across the street is two
feet high.
>> Yes.
>> So he's just looking to flip the
property for a nice money and
>> I think a half actually I think he wants
a half money for that. But now he
supposedly is also the gentleman that
purchased the land on the other side.
>> Yes, he did.
>> And so he
is looking to possibly do something with
that, right? So
>> yeah, I mean I I would think he would be
approaching the city about updating the
redevelopment plan to include both sides
of the street and do something larger on
both sides as was envisioned 27 or so
years ago. So if if he if we would
approve this for cannabis cultivation at
the acne site, he could do the same
thing right across the street. Is that
correct? No or no?
>> No. The the redevelopment plan amendment
includes just the acne just
>> so it's just just the acne property and
acne buildings does not include
>> and what you were saying is so council
already reviewed this and council said
everything is okay and they have to we
have to stamp for approval.
>> So they they refer it to the land use
board. It's supposed to be for review
and recommendation for consistency with
the city's master plan. So, um,
essentially the whole discussion is um
supposed to be centered around whether
the proposed use is consistent with the
goals of the master plan. So,
>> well, you can tell us that, Ryan. We
haven't seen it in how many years.
>> It's been a bit. Yeah. Um,
>> the master plan predates cannabis.
>> It does. It does. Um, so the the master
plan speaks to the site. It speaks to
the gateway redevelopment plan which
existed at the time of the last master
plan update. Um it talks about the
potential for a diverse number of uses.
Um the permitted uses at the time ranged
um obviously from stuff including the
highway commercial but included
residential um included manufacturing
type uses like light manufacturing
water. Um so there were other other uses
that could have been likened to this but
generally speaking it was trying to
bring in people. This is obviously a lot
less people centric use. Um there
wouldn't be any signage really
associated with it. I believe the the
amendment to the plan includes that
there would be no signage for
cultivation or manufacturing business.
Um so as you drive in, you wouldn't even
know it would just be, you know, a nice
new building in sight. You wouldn't even
know what it was really.
>> No, you will know what it is, Ryan,
because the sign abandoned sign for the
last 30 years that nobody has ever made
him take down
>> or change. It still says markets.
>> Oh, the Acme sign.
Yeah. So,
I I would assume they would have to come
back to the board for an updated site.
Um, so we could have that discussion at
that time. I believe I mean if if I was
the site owner, I would I would try to
keep the sign there as long as possible
to preserve the rights to it.
>> Um, because they could never go back and
rebuild that sign, but you know, if they
took it down, they would never be
permitted to install the same.
>> Well, at least take the market's
lettering down and blank the sign off.
>> Yeah. No, understood. There there's
definitely some things they could see.
>> You know, a lot of people don't see
stuff like that. It's like driving
through town here and you go to the the
auto parts store and and the clock both
clocks read two different times and you
know, is somebody supposed to be
worrying about that? I mean, obviously
autosome don't worry about it. Is
anybody from the city care that you know
everybody's just abandoned? Everybody's
just giving up.
>> Yeah, I think we've made them fix it a
few times, but yeah, it's contin
>> and they should take it down. They're
not going to maintain it.
>> That's just my opinion. I'm sorry. No,
>> it's kind of like at the last meeting
where we had the gentleman come in and
he had this wellqualified tenant. So
again, you know, I'm going to rehash it
again, but he didn't want to lose the
tenant. So we're supposed to bend over
backwards because he's got somebody
that's not permitted use
>> for this for this tenant. It's not the
person that lives here or he owns it.
He's used himself. It's kind of the same
thing again with this gentleman here
that owns Yakme.
>> I mean, he's owned it for for years and
hasn't done anything. And again, now he
wants to flip it and then we all have to
just run around and try and get things
approved to make everybody happy, but
then they just walk away.
>> So the the owners
>> the the difference is that was a use
variance. He's coming here asking for
permission to do something that he's not
allowed to do here.
>> In this situation, the redeveloper has
already had negotiations with the city
and sort of mutually agreed to amend the
terms of the existing redevelopment plan
to include this proposed use. So
essentially the city and the developer
are are kind of kind of already agreed.
We think that this is appropriate here.
They're just referring it to you guys
for again consistency with the master
plans. Do you feel that this is
consistent with the intent of the master
plans? Uh what what the master plan
envisioned both for that zone and for
this site specifically since this
development plan master plan. Um,
>> so it's kind of like it's already been
stamped approved, then we just now just
have to
>> Well, it I mean there's a reason that
this process exists because if if the
board feels strongly that this is not
consistent with the intent of the master
plan and consistent with the intent of
um, you know, the prior red development
plan that the the master plan refers to,
then this is the opportunity for people
other than council to to you know,
develop that opinion and refer it as a
group back to council for consideration.
Um, so it's it's not, you know, it
doesn't have to be a rubber stamp. I
mean, you guys are all appointed here
for a reason. They they want your
opinion. They respect your opinion. Um,
you know, as as mayor and council. So,
you're here to provide that opinion as
to whether you think that it's
consistent with the master plan. I mean,
understand that that's a relatively
narrow question that's being asked. It's
not, you know, do you like this? Would
you prefer something else? It's just, do
you think this is consistent with the
master plan and the prior development
plan? And if the answer to that is no,
then, you know, that's the Do you take
it? If the answer to that is yes, then
that's good.
>> Yeah. Lisa, as a followup of what Ryan
is saying, so you have sat down, you and
whatever particular committee it was on
council sat down and met with the
proposed redeveloper. You've negotiated
with him in exchange for him getting the
approval. What have you negotiate? I
mean, have you negotiated any?
>> I mean, I mean, if there's a
negotiation, he's got to give up
something or give something in return.
Is he willing to put up a new building?
Is he willing to type of improvements? I
mean, is it has he shown that the
building isn't structurally not safe as
an architect or an engineer going in? I
mean, since it's a negotiations,
>> what has the city extracted or can
extract from him as in regard to the
building, a new brand new building, a
new facility, x amount, as opposed to
just going in and putting uh paint and
and what on the building? I mean it's a
negotiation.
>> Understood. So I I have not been part of
directly part of those negotiations. So
I can't speak firsthand to that. Um I
know that we received an engineering
report on the facility previously that
every the walls, the floor, everything
else was fine. That the facility needed
a new roof. Um and then obviously all of
the exterior finishes and whatever. Um
the site obviously needed to be
reconstructed. That was part of the
prior site plan. I don't know if the
final redevelopment agreement has been
signed at this point. Do you know that?
negotiate with this guy. We just
basically took his
>> Right. As far as my memory is, we just
took his idea and then put it on you
pretty much to say if it's doable or
not.
>> Yeah. So I I don't believe that the city
has finalized the redevelopment
agreement at this point. I think we're
just trying to to move through the use.
Um because the I mean the redevelopment
agreement is al ultimately what that
negotiation is. Though what's a little
different most of the um I know you've
been involved in prior redevelopment
plans on the city's behalf. What's a
little different with this site is that
the city doesn't own the property. So,
and in a lot of other redevelopment
plans, we own the property. So, the the
negotiations are a lot more direct. It's
you're going to do this or we're not
going to sell you the land essentially.
And this, it's privately held. So,
there's a little less leverage. But, um,
>> but there's a big leverage here. And the
big leverage is that they can't do this
per use. I agree.
>> Do the development unless they get the
approval. And what I would suggest, and
I know I don't know if time is of the
essence, evidently it isn't. I would
suggest that that this discussion be
tabled and let the committee recommend
that they go back find out what they can
negotiate what they're willing to do as
far as the site goes and the improvement
type of improvements because there seems
to be some split split opinions here as
to whether it really should go there and
I think that the council should have the
tools they need to negotiate to bring
businesses that they think are
worthwhile but but I also think that
They don't have to agree with us. They
can do whatever.
>> No, I Well, they No, they have to have
they have to have the they have to have
the recommendation to change it from
here. What I'm saying is I think it's
worthwhile letting them go back discuss
with the developer, see what they can
get. They get the opinion from here, but
also they need the tools to be able to
negotiate with these if one fails or
they want to put something there. But I
think they should be able to tell us
that this developer is going to go in.
He's just not going to do band-aids to
this thing. And what type of building
and what we're going to get out of it.
And I would like to see council have
that opportunity to discuss it further
and come back and let us know that yes,
they think they can get a good deal out
of this taken into consideration in the
opinions that there is some hesitancy
about giving it. I don't want to vote
against giving council the approval to
negotiate something that maybe if they
get the right terms, get a new building,
get a new facade, new facility there,
that is something attractive because
they are in other communities. If you
can look at them, they're nice
>> looking buildings and they're nice tax
ratable
and and that so and it brings revenue.
But I I that would be my suggestion that
they have the opportunity to go back and
clarify what he's willing to do and to
give them the opportunity and come back
to this board and say, "Yes, we can get
this. We can address these questions."
But that's only my limited opinion.
>> My limited opinion is is that this
should be his retail operation
is not consistent with the master plan.
I I don't know how it can be if we have
an ordinance saying we can only have
two. I mean, I'm sure you're going to
write something in there sooner or
later, Ryan, that, you know, addresses
cannabis.
>> Mhm.
>> And that would be a part of it. Correct.
>> Into this red plan.
>> Yeah. No, into the master plan.
>> Oh, yeah. Obviously, that's something
that was not on the table when we first
get it. But in
>> Is there going to do that in the near
future?
>> So,
>> does that have to be addressed if it's a
land use issue?
>> It does. And it is. I would say that
taking a step back and and setting
everything else aside, I would say that
the retail component that's being
requested is probably the most
consistent element that they would
propose on this site with the master
plan
>> because if they were opening if they
were opening a retail store for anything
else,
>> that would be a permitted use.
>> Right? So what I'm saying is, and again
in a vacuum, not, you know, not
considering other uses, not considering
licenses, anything like that. If if
you're telling me that they wanted to
site and open a retail store at that
location, that would be as close to a
permitted use as possible,
>> but it can't be cannabis because our
ordinance clearly states no.
>> I agree. Like I said, I'm I'm not
right. sort of bifurcating that saying
just from a use perspective what what
you're expecting when you have a retail
store is that people are driving to your
store to come and purchase something and
then leave. So again setting everything
else aside the retail component would be
as close to what's a permitted use in
the zone uh as as any other or certainly
more so than than the growth or the
manufacturing.
Then considering the the cannabis side
of it I agree that we only have one
license and it's not um It's not
consistent in that if one is permitted
and one is used then we don't have
availability for it. So there's sort of
competing interest there. I just wanted
to highlight like from a from a purely
land use perspective a retail cannabis
would be as close to a permitted use as
or closer to a permitted use than
anything else that
um whether that you know whe whether
that weighs into your into your
recommendation. Obviously there's other
factors. There's a fact that there is no
license. there's a factor that um
there's another operating business right
across the street,
>> right? Um but I mean ultimately the the
highway commercial zone is trying you
know the underlying zoning of this site
um which doesn't appear to be working is
trying to attract retail uses to the
site. It just it hasn't been successful
in the last 20 years.
>> Well, I think we should put a motion on
tour uh Mr. President and see what
happens. How how long ago did you get
this report from the engineers saying
the building was okay?
>> That was probably 2018 or 19. That was
when Ray Persian was involved because he
and it wasn't submitted directly to me.
It was submitted to the building office
because he was trying to get I believe
he pulled a permit to get a new roof. So
um in order for the code office or I'm
sorry in order for the build
construction office to sign off on the
roof building permit he had to provide
justification that the walls were
sufficient to support any roof. So that
was it didn't come to me. I was just
aware of it. So it was submitted to the
construction office. Apparently the
construction code official approved it
because ultimately they did get a roof
reconstruction permit.
>> The walls I would believe are structural
but the roof and and the retro fallen
in.
>> So they they never because that building
the roof was open in some spots. They
never fixed all that.
>> No, I don't know. I don't believe that
it is. I check again from the last time
I remember looking at it. They're still
open. So Ryan, explain the redevelopment
process that on a site like this when it
when it is referred to the land use
board after council says, "Hey, take a
look at this
>> and and we say no, we don't want it.
That's the end of it." Or can council
proceed, you know, yeah, we hear what
you're saying, but we disagree with you
and we're going to proceed with it
anyhow. Does it work like that or does
it end with us?
>> So I'll defer to Damon to to get started
with that.
So, um,
some you're not sitting here to be a
rubber stamp. Uh, that's that's
>> true.
>> And
while some may feel that, well, council
has already, you know, put the card
before the horse.
>> That's not entirely accurate. This is
your process. But the question, the
simple question that Ryan laid out was,
is the proposed redevelopment plan
consistent with the master plan? That's
the question that is before you. Um,
there are a couple of just from
listening to this, there are a couple of
things that you know that strike out.
First of all, before we even deal with
the issue of their
supplemental request of of the retail
portion. Uh just the cannabis use itself
uh for cultivation and manufacturing. Uh
is that consistent with the master plan?
Well, we've already heard that
the master plan predates
recreate legalized recreational
cannabis. So, we're already making an
accommodation there to determine whether
or not uh this is still going to be
consistent uh with with the plan. The
second part of that is, and uh I think
Mr. Frick uh acknowledged it, said that,
you know, well, you're talking about
manufacturing and growth. Should this be
in the industrial zone? Um that's
something that you have to look at your
master plan and consider that should it
be there? But there are other components
to your master plan and one that I would
imagine and Ryan you can correct me if
I'm wrong is economic development
um manufacturing and you know and I
heard a lot of folks talk about you know
saturation of the cannabis market and uh
you know what's happening in other
municipalities
but reality is that the the
best thing for municipalities such as
yours are manufacturing and cultivation
type uses. You know, Mr. members brings
other experience to this board uh from
dealing with this uh directly, but
because those are job creators. Um and
that was going to be one of my questions
as to did um when you were speaking with
the proposed redeveloper, you said it
was a national uh a national u uh
cannabis company, did they propose how
many jobs that they would be uh bringing
into the community? Things like that.
Those are things that you actually have
to consider because when you're talking
about economic growth, you're talking
about job development. Uh then those are
things that are other drivers of what is
coming into your community. All of a
sudden, uh now you have folks that are
uh you know could be working locally or
other folks that could be moving into
your community from other areas. Uh so
the
central question here is is this
consistent overall with the master plan?
Uh is this going to be an economic
driver? Is it going to be a job
developer? Is it going to enhance tax
revenue? We know that you're entitled as
a host community to 2% uh tax. The good
thing about uh uh cultivators and
manufacturers, they're just not
infiltrating your community and and
selling to your community. Their product
is going throughout the entire state.
And if it is a reputable
uh national developer,
uh this is someone I I can tell you that
doing this uh you know, in Vinand, I
represent the city of Vinand in cannabis
uh matters. uh that they have a
homegrown business that they brought in
a national uh cultivator uh called
Garden Greens and Garden Greens is one
of the most celebrated uh New Jersey
cultivators throughout the state. They
sell throughout the state and they
generate probably about uh an extra
million dollars in tax revenue for the
city of Iowa. They pay them $250,000 a
quarter. I know that. Wow.
>> Not from stories. I see the numbers. Um,
but
this is what makes your board so
diverse. And I said all money isn't good
money. We shouldn't be, you know,
chasing, you know, certain dollars. Uh,
if they're not going to do the bare
minimum to improve our gateway. And I
say all this to say that we come back to
the original question. This is uh the
gateway redevelopment plan. This isn't
the industrial redevelopment plan. It
isn't, you know, this is the gateway
redevelopment plan. Uh when that was
drawn up, you know, the project that is
proposed now, is that consistent with
what uh those folks that were developing
it thought that you know that this
project would look like at that acne
site? Um, so if it's not
and you reject the proposed ordinance,
uh, maybe you reject it and you send it
back to council with some
recommendations.
Um, and you know, you simply say, you
know, well, we don't think it's
consistent with the master plan for uh,
these reasons. Uh, but I think you need
to give, you know, the bodies working
together. you need to speak to them.
This is your way to communicate to them
uh and tell them, you know, well, this
is what we believe uh was the intent of
the master plan at that site and this is
what the type of folks that you should
be looking for or if in fact you're
going to go down this road, uh this is
what we're going to need to see.
Well, as far as I'm concerned, if you're
here saying to us, does it match what
the original gateway? No, it doesn't.
It's nowhere near what it was.
>> Okay. But I do agree with you that if
you can send a message back to council
that if they're going to want to
negotiate and this is what you think is
the best usage that you can get at this
time, then there has to be real
improvement to the building. It can't
just be a band-aid type of effect. You
just can't go in and put a different
facade on there and put a roof on and
because it's a cheap building and fix up
the the the parking lot. It's got to be
a real improvement and money and if it's
a national company that I'm sure they're
willing to spend the money,
>> right? But there has to be if you want
something from us, this is what we want.
But that's up to council to negotiate.
This body can't negotiate it. It can
only give it fast approval of yes, it'll
meet the standards or it won't. That's
the simple question.
>> Are you aware of what the company is
coming in,
>> Brian?
>> I I don't recall. I was actually looking
back through my emails now to see if I
can find.
>> So, I was not
>> from what I recall in negotiations. Um
with council's redevelopment committee
and the city solicitors.
>> Send it back to them. We'll come back
with more information.
I mean one other thing I would consider
is that with these businesses and they
talked about another municipality is
that uh there's an assumption that is um
that is inaccurate that if someone opens
a location that it will be successful.
It's still a business and there are a
lot of people who have never had any
background in this particular business
that have been able to open some type of
facility whether it's retail grow or
what have you.
>> Question for you, Mr. Timmers.
>> Yes.
>> But are we talking about the same thing?
A grower as a national grower is
different than a retail.
>> So,
>> uh, so the difference is is that there
are MSOs in in every category
>> every what I'm saying is that the
retailer I would agree they maybe don't,
but if he's a grower and he's a national
one, that's a lot different than some
he's has the experience. He knows what
he's doing, I would think. So to some
extent it's all right. I mean New Jersey
is everything is is supposed to be like
like like like new like there's not a
lot of uh diversity initially but at
some point there will be diversity. So
you'll have I'm talking about of
products right people will start making
products whe from clones or whatever in
in New Jersey. So like if you've been to
California and you go through there
you're going to see way more products.
If you go to Massachusetts, you're going
to see way more products than what you
see here. But over time, there's going
to be more diversity. Right now, it's
kind of homogeneous. So, it it really is
up to your business acumen how well you
do. And there are a lot of people who
have no business acumen at all, and
they're struggling, as they should.
So, in in larger cities that that did
not have caps, they're going to allow
the market to some extent to control.
It's people will get eaten up by larger
you know it's it's the animal kingdom
it's how it's how it's going to work. So
if you what happens is is that there are
people who have access to reporters
writers and what they want to say is oh
the municipality should do more to make
sure that I'm successful and actually we
should do nothing to ensure your success
other than allowing you to open. You
have to compete in that marketplace on
your own. M
>> Mr. Timbers uh made a a a very very
excellent point in that the idea of
cannabis cultivation and manufacturing.
Uh the common thought is that it's just
making pre-rolled uh joints or um at at
you know most people maybe even gummies
but it goes so far beyond that. the the
possibility the realm of possibility for
manufacturing. Uh you could be talking
about bottling beverages there. You
could be talking about uh you know uh
>> creams,
lotions, balms, uh edibles, you know,
bakeries. Um you know, there there are
so many opportunities there. But as long
as it's limited
to, you know, everyone just making the
naturally consumable smokable product,
then you're right, they're going to be
eating each other up. So, but it gets
back to
what was the intent of the master plan?
Is the are the is that a facility that
should be tucked away in the industrial
zone? Uh, you know, I don't think the
master plan ever intended to have a
manufacturing of any type there.
>> Of any type.
>> Okay. I don't care if it's building
toothpicks, right? It's not what we with
that location is.
>> I mean, that's that's the first thing
you're going to see when you come into
>> No, it's not the first thing you're
going to see.
>> It's manufacturing.
>> What do you mean?
>> You're going to see a couple red
buildings.
>> And nobody wants them there either,
>> but manufacturing. So, now you just add
to it, you know. Well, one, you may
never know what it is. It's just a it's
just a warehouse and and literally you
don't know what's going on inside of it,
>> right?
>> Whereas that red barn, we all think we
know what's going inside of it.
>> I don't know.
>> Um I don't know either.
>> I don't I don't think that's the spot
for this. What
>> What I do know is that this is your
opportunity as a collective body to
communicate to council.
>> Can I make a motion on that?
We keep
>> I don't know if everybody's done
talking. Hold on. Does anybody else have
any comments that
>> just like you said the gateway I mean
we're entering today city from Milican
Township and and I think at the last
meeting to the right we have massage
parfand side what we have there on the
right hand side we're looking to put
>> tractor trailers. guy was worried and
then
>> this guy was worried about the gateway
when he when he stood up here at the
podium and talked. He was worried about
because it may hurt him and so so now
we're putting a fourth thing right there
that I don't think is desirable as a
gateway that's the entrance to the city.
I mean we have three wrongs. So so
>> I do agree that that I mean it's a
building there and we need growth but
but I think it belongs in the industrial
zone for that. I mean, that's that's my
thought. I mean, it's not what I think
we envision the city when we pull up and
see that. Just like you said, even
though there's not a sign there,
everybody knows what's going to be going
on there,
>> right?
>> Yeah.
>> Anybody else?
>> Well, but the the the uh the revenue
that it brings in, I know, is that's a
strong temptation. I I get it. I mean, I
don't know that we'll see the kind of
money that that Vine's getting, but you
don't know. But I just it just doesn't
feel right.
>> Oh, and and by the way, Jess says City
of Ireland has Garden Greens, which is a
successful business. They also have an
international multi-state operator
called Colombia Care, which just filed
for bankruptcy. Not because of how it's
operated in Violin or in New Jersey, but
because they're overextended throughout
the uh throughout the entire country and
throughout the world. and they hold
three licenses in violin. They hold a
dispensary, a manufacturing and a
cultivation license. They are selling
the dispensary in connection with the
bankruptcy, selling the dispensary and
they are just walking away from the
manufacturing and the cultivation and
that is supposedly a company that knew
what they were doing, but they're
they're going to have two vacant sites
in the city. So
>> Ryan, if if this is added to the master
plan, cannabis,
>> we never get another say about it,
right? Anybody comes in that wants to if
this place doesn't go, anybody comes in
that wants to do cannabis can go right
in.
>> Think you do?
>> When the master plan amendment is
finalized, it comes here because it's a
document of the plan. Um, but we
wouldn't I mean it we're we're going to
incorporate cannabis uses essentially
into the existing zones with amendments
that are appropriate. So we wouldn't
have um cannabis manufacturing
um or any of the other cannabis growth
cultivation delivery. Can't remember
there's a fourth one. Either we we
wouldn't have those uses as permitted
uses in highway commercial zone just
cart blanch right now. Um, we updated
the land use ordinance already to allow
for those types of uses in the
industrial park. Um, we would
I guess at some point we're going to
have to amend the land use ordinance to
allow retail cannabis in the highway
commercial and retail commercial zones
contingent upon the availability of a
license. So, if the city only has one
license for retail cannabis um or I'm
sorry, for retail cannabis in the retail
commercial zone, then even though it's a
permitted use there, there's only one
license. So, you know, you're not going
to have multiple shops. So, the the
ordinance will need to be updated, but
it will still reflect um the types of
businesses in the locations that we're
looking for. But that site could always
would always be
>> well so that that site
>> that site's well that that site wouldn't
be a grow site because it's in the
highway commercial zone if you remove
the redevelopment plan. The
redevelopment plan provides for a whole
different set of zoning for that site.
>> Okay.
>> It's if if you remove the redevelopment
plan, it's in highway commercial zone.
The redevelopment plan includes things
like um residential development. Um the
gateway residential rehabilitation area
is how it was originally founded and
there was 200 residential units proposed
there. So um
>> I think that was Beaser Homes I think.
>> Yeah, Beer Homes are the original
developer. Um it was amended I want to
say lasted 2017 but those uses were
still included. Um so there's there's a
whole host of uses um that are retail
and or residentialbased for all intents
and purposes. Um, one was like
entertainment. Um, a movie theater was
permitted. Um, there's multiple other,
you know, things like in similar. Here
we go. So in the most recent
redevelopment
uh plan, permitted uses were assisted
living facility, bank, cultural,
recreation and entertainment uses,
design, shopping center, education,
um financial uses, food product uses,
which does include bakeries,
confectionaries, um convenience stores,
specialty. It does specifically say
though non-manufacturing,
fully enclosed eating and drinking
establishments, general business,
institutional uses, medical and related
uses, minor repair operations, ocean
picture theaters, personal service and
custom craft uses, plants, animals and
related uses such as animal clinics,
hospitals, retail florists, guard
supply, etc. uh public buildings and
uses professional offices quasi public
establishments which would be nonprofit
religious or uh other institutional
providing educational cultural religious
or recreational similar tech programs,
recreational and entertainment uses such
as community recreation centers, bowling
alleys, health clubs, exercise, tennis,
golf, etc. uh retail stores and service
establishments, retail shops or stores
engage in limited fabrication or
processed uh goods, which that's
specifically defined in the ordinance as
um a business that does limited
manufacturing in a certain square
footage, usually 50% or less of the
building, and then has a retail
component. So like if you let's say
you're a cabinet maker and you make
cabinets in the back and a retail store
in the front, like that that would be
something that would be used. So th that
is the the full list um of the uses that
were in the redevelopment plan to this
point.
>> Okay.
>> And that was last Sunday.
>> That was 2017.
>> Anybody else have anything else they
want to say?
>> Well, it looks like um so
distribution probably would not qualify.
So if someone wanted to do that
>> delivery Yeah. So the the city currently
has uh allowed delivery uses in the
industrial zone like to be based out of
the industrial. So
>> um so yeah the retail were the only was
the only cannabis related use allowed in
the retail commercial and highway
commercial districts. All five other
allowable cannabis uses were relegated
to the industrial zones.
So I think it goes back to what what
Damon uh and and you had said that
probably the only thing that would
qualify would be retail
and we're not and we already would have
an ordinance that wouldn't permit the
retail there. So the other uses
manufacture distribution
um I don't see six which is the
delivery. It looks like you couldn't
have those there.
>> Yeah. If you remove the redevelopment
plan and it was in the underlying
highway commercial zone exclusively,
then correct. Retail would be the only
use that would be permitted there and
the other five would not be permitted
just based on the highway commercial.
>> All right. Anybody else?
>> John, you wanted to make a motion that
we refer this back to council that
redevelopment zone.
We already have an ordinance for
cannabis. Okay. Retail is allowed at
that facility, but not cannabis retail.
It's very clear in our ordinance for for
cannabis. No manufacturing is allowed as
per our master plan. We're not looking
to change it. I think the uses that are
in the master plan are pretty expansive
and there's a lot of opportunity for
someone, but this just isn't isn't it?
I don't know how to word that.
>> That's your job.
>> I mean,
>> I I think the
there was an ordinance that was referred
uh to the Atlantis board, an ordinance
adopting an amendment uh to the
redevelopment plan for the gateway
rehabilitation area. Um, so since we
like to make motions in the affirmative,
I I would assume uh the motion would be
to um
reject the amendment,
the proposed amendment.
>> Correct.
>> Um because you're making a finding that
it is not I'm not putting words in your
mouth. You haven't voted yet. Uh but the
motion would be to reject the proposed
amendment to the gateway rehabilitation
area.
>> It doesn't meet the master plan.
>> Because it doesn't meet the master plan
>> the existing master plan.
>> Is that
I think that's the only choice you have.
But it's I'm only voting on it because
am I allowed to vote on this?
>> Think so. Well, actually,
>> that's when I
referral.
>> Yeah. So, you're not allowed to do it.
>> Yeah. No, you're not refer back to
yourself.
>> My only gripe is um the retail. I don't
I don't believe that should be there.
And
>> no. And and that's when the motion is
made and you guys open it up to
discussion, although we've already had a
robust discussion. Uh what I'm hearing
from you, mayor, is that you would
permit some the cultivation and growth
of marijuana in that area, not the
retail. But there are some other board
members obviously that have uh some
other issues, but uh you're not going to
be voting on that.
>> No, but I would just like to say, you
know, citizens in Egg Harbor are very
confused about taxes. The city has not
had a municipal purpose tax increase in
six years, and if you talk to your
neighbor, they won't believe you. This
year we have a two cent tax increase and
that includes absorbing just one example
$95,000 increase in salaries for the
police department which I'm not opposed
to because we need we need a police
department but you know you have to
think about those things you know that
even though you know you're say we're
grasping at lowhanging fruit
anyone who has had a seat on council
knows very well that we get blamed for
high taxes when it's really not at least
for the past seven years isn't us.
>> And uh by the way, I misspoke. The
motion would be to adopt the ordinance.
So you would say yes or no to adopt the
amendment
uh since we're making it in the
affirmative. So if you want to adopt the
amendment, it would be yes and permit
marijuana cannabis cultivation in that
area, it would be a yes vote. If you do
not agree that it's consistent with the
master plan, it would be a no.
>> But that also includes the retail.
>> That that includes that's everything.
>> That's the whole
debut.
>> Oh, so you can't just
>> can't separate can't separate it.
>> Did they include
>> Well, it'd be good, but that was kind of
a minor component of the
>> Yeah, that's
>> I would agree with the mayor.
Uh I don't think they have interest in
having a 20,000 foot retail location. I
think they wanted to have cultivation
back with a minor retail.
>> Were you a long time?
>> The city signed.
>> So what happened
if if we
>> So
>> we do not approve the amendment.
>> They already signed.
>> What's the next step?
>> Agreement.
>> When you
when they did this uh who did this? Uh
>> Chris
Orlando did.
fix typo.
>> No, no, no, no typos.
>> There it is.
>> Well, the whereas the pick of two
wherees together in one paragraph.
>> Um,
I fix that.
Well, I think that would show this this
synopsis that you gave us on the um
glass
number
the first bullet point following is a
summary of the redevelopment plan
amendment.
>> It's stating on bullet point one that
the development agre agreement was
signed
>> and I don't believe I recall that
happening. you.
So, um you would have to strike if you
uh
>> if you did not office prepared this
>> if you didn't want
retail
um you would have to strike uh 6.4.3
subsection B
uh which identifies a class 5
uh license which is a retail dispensary.
>> Right.
You can't sign a
reinforce
of the ordinance. I believe it is at the
bottom.
>> Yes,
that's a 6.4.3 subsection B where it
mentions that. I'm looking for anywhere
it says uh identify as a class 5.
>> I don't see D
>> B 6.4.3
says class there.
>> That's just addressing setbacks way.
>> Yeah, that's what mine said.
>> Yeah, I think you would strike B. I
think you would strike B. If
>> you strike B all together
>> and then in A at least strike the three
and four, right?
I don't actually I don't think I think
you might have to strike that
>> that whole section.
>> Strike strike.
>> Yeah, strike A and B.
>> Oh, is it B?
>> I thought you said Wait a minute. I
don't
>> A identifies uh
>> B. Oh, here it is. Any business having a
valid license issue in New Jersey?
>> It says from is offered. So I based on
the summary and the reading of 641B1,
>> I believe the intent was to to allow for
any of the
>> state licensed cannabis uses.
>> And what I'm hearing from the board is
that uh they don't want retail
retail.
>> Yeah.
That's uh right.
So,
so suggestion would be to
if it would be to reject it and with the
comments that you don't you would
consider
perhaps consider uh cannabis use under
the right circumstances But certainly
not retail
>> or absent an amendment to the master
plan.
>> Absent. Well, the master plan is going
to accomplish
>> as uh Ryan indicated. That's your
document ultimately. That's going to be
something that the planning board
develops.
But the question right now is, you know,
does the master plan permitted?
>> Well, no, it's clear it doesn't,
>> right? So, the the intent of the review
and recommendation is not is it in the
master plan? Does the master plan allow
it? Is it consistent with the goals of
the master plan? Well, it depends
because like
>> if we're we're looking at economic
development.
>> Sure.
>> That's that's
>> Well, right. So, it's right. You have to
weigh on the whole is it consistent with
the goals of the master plan. Obviously,
it's consistent with some. It's
inconsistent with others. It's up to the
board to decide
>> whether it's consistent enough, I guess
I'll say. Um, you know, is is the
proposal consistent with the intent of
the master plan? Do the do the positives
um however they're advanced and whatever
they are, do they outweigh the negatives
to be consistent with the goals of the
master plan?
So
I would much rather see them go back and
negotiate and see whether they what
they're getting out of this because
nobody really knows what this is going
to be.
So, I don't know that this board would
be allowed to base its decisions on that
information.
>> No, but they could they could hold it
off the next month. They get further
information.
>> If we tell them no, they can still go
back and
>> Yeah.
>> look at what they want and see and and
come to the board again at any time they
want. But
>> they would have to amend the
redevelopment plan. They couldn't they
couldn't send the same redevelopment
plan amendments back to the board,
right?
>> They have to amend it personally. It
would have right there would have to be
some amendments made and then a referral
back to the board for reconsideration of
the revised amendments.
>> And you know, if this is voted
down,
uh I would uh write to solicitor a
letter explaining that uh board didn't
feel it was consistent.
Number one. Uh number two, uh that
although retail uses are permitted
within the uh former Acme redevelopment
zone, uh that
board didn't feel that
uh
cannabis retail use was appropriate at
the location,
>> but the manufacturing and that. So, not
to throw a wrench in that comment, but
the irony is if they were to abandon
redevelopment and they were acquire the
cannabis license from across the street,
they could open a retail cannabis in
that location without me
>> coming back to
>> across the street.
>> Yeah. Because what's it's
>> they can't do it for two years though.
>> Why is that?
>> Because that's the you can't change
ownership for two years.
>> Sell that. But if if we were to do this,
that's probably what's going to happen
anyway. They're just going to
>> and relocate it.
>> But yeah, so in the highway commercial
zone, a retail cannabis license or
retail cannabis is a permitted use in
highway commercial. So if they abandon
the redevelopment plan and they wanted
to open just retail cannabis in that
building, if they could find a way to
acquire the license and that two-year
prohibition expires, they could open
retail cannabis in that building.
>> They wouldn't have any manufacturing.
They wouldn't have any cultivation. They
would anything else. But in theory, just
by what the zoning would allow, they
could open a retail,
>> but it wouldn't create another retail.
It wouldn't create an additional retail.
>> They would have to get the license from
the current
>> or the city would have to allow another
retail.
>> Correct. Exactly.
>> I I just don't want to
>> Yeah. No, you're exactly right.
>> Right. We don't want to make a referral
to the board that we don't or I'm sorry
back to the city council that we don't
feel that a retail cannabis is
appropriate at this location because
>> because it's already been deemed
>> appropriate across the street,
>> right? So, it'd be a kind of circular.
That's my concern.
>> Well, it's like a liquor license. You're
only allowed to have so many of them in
town. So,
>> agree. But if if they could acquire the
cannabis license from across the street,
they could move it to this location and
open a retail business because it's
permitted use in the highway
commercials.
>> We're more concerned about the
cultivation, I think. Isn't that
>> just the retail? That's all I'm talking
about. Right. Right. So, if they could
buy out Atlantic Flower
>> and wait out the the 2-year period or
whatever was left on that,
>> they could buy out that license and move
it to the Acme building and open a
retail,
>> but there there would still only be two.
>> That's correct. Correct. Exactly.
>> Their limitation, the city's limitation
on the number of class 5 is two.
>> Overrides all of this correct for this
conversation. But what is the I and I've
heard
>> we don't have an ordinance. We already
have an ordinance that says if one goes
away they could go there. So why do we
need to add to a new ordinance?
>> So
>> they want in another they want to
include retail and other cannabis uses
so that they could have like a
combination type facility where they
could grow, manufacture and have retail
together. That would not be permitted in
the highway commercial.
>> Right. But that is the ideal vertical
integration. But that's that's kind of
what I was getting at when I when I was
addressing Lisa's point earlier was that
the only point that would be permitted
by itself of the current proposal is
>> is the retail
>> and you know I've heard some competing
thoughts here that you know that
cultivation and manufacturing although
that wasn't originally envisioned for
this redevelopment zone. I've heard that
well, you know, there are other reasons
why that may be a driving factor. Um,
those are things that you're going to
have to reconcile as a board. Um,
so, you know, the motion would be to
adopt the redevelopment plan for the
gateway rehabilitation area. It's voted
down.
should give them some direction as to
>> give them a reason why you're voting
what you're looking for.
>> Yeah. So, can I read one more piece just
so you have one last piece of context
straight from the master plan in the
section titled White Horse Pike Corridor
which it says includes the gateway
residential and old a carbor boat
company. Um it lists five objectives for
this. The first is evaluation of
existing uses along the corridor and
encourage highway commercial uses that
do not compete with the downtown
businesses. The second improve
appearance of businesses along the
corridor. The third develop design
criteria for automobile scaled signage
and streetscape elements along the
corridor. The fourth introduce traffic
calming devices to attenuate congestion.
And the fifth is encourage development
of vacant and/or underutilized parcels.
So
in the master plan and again each of
those have competing elements with this
proposal but I I just wanted to you all
to you know have the those elements from
the master plan. Those are the stated
goals for the water corridor.
Sorry.
Okay. Uh,
Mr. Tiner, how uh how do you want to say
this or how do you want to
officially make the motion?
>> Uh, I would ask if uh
>> well, we got we need a second on that
motion, right? Somebody second the
motion. Oh, second. Okay.
>> So, the um the
motion is uh to adopt an ordinance
uh an amendment to the redevelopment
plan for the gateway rehabilitation
area. Uh who's the motion?
>> John.
>> John is the motion.
>> Second, Keith.
>> Uh Mr. Molino is the second.
Uh discussion.
>> Now, this ordinance permits all three
uses.
>> Yeah.
>> Th this current
ordinance would permit all you all
cannabis uses. You could uh
>> so if you're opposed as retail and you
just want manufacturing, you have to
vote no,
>> right?
>> You you could offer a competing motion
>> that excluded retail
>> that excludes retail
>> if you if you think if you feel that
everything else is appropriate but
retail should be excluded.
>> In other words, make another motion. And
by the way, this is belt and suspenders
because your other ordinance already
precludes them from opening a retail
>> at this time.
>> At this time,
>> right, without the acquisition.
>> Okay.
So, if uh there's an offer to
amend the motion to adopt this motion
with the exception,
>> would that be done afterwards? I would
>> fail. if it fails.
>> Yes.
>> So, uh there's motion second. Uh there's
been discussion. You want to take a roll
call vote.
>> And you want a reason for your vote
>> or no,
Mr.
>> No.
Mr. G.
>> No. I I feel that it's not consistent
with the master plan.
Mr. Walker,
>> I say no. And I have a few reasons why.
Uh it's not consistent with the plan
with the master plan. And we've already
discussed another building over there
that
is I I consider it not a very good
gateway business. And I would feel as if
we were creating a
a uh how would you say it? uh
a bad vibe coming into the city there.
I'll I'll say it like that. So I I I'll
say no.
>> Mr. Mulleno,
>> I'm going to say no for the retail.
>> You can't do that. You have to say no
for everything or nothing.
>> I thought he said we're going to stay a
second. They'll do another My bad. Um it
doesn't fit the plan.
Torres.
>> No.
>> And your reason?
>> I think that there's a hidden agenda
somewhere in here from reading the
paperwork and hearing all the
discussions. And I think there's more
than meets the eye from what is being
suggested and was being planned.
Uh, Mr. Crick,
>> no. Uh, and I agree that it doesn't meet
the master plan.
>> Mr. Peterson,
>> no. For reasons stated during our
discussions in the conflict with master
plan
>> and Mr. Dennis.
>> Oh, I vote no. It's not consistent with
the master plan, but also it permits the
retail sale and I think that it's not
healthy for that area.
Now,
the if the board would consider
uh adopting uh making a motion to adopt
the
ordinance number 10, 2022 with
striking
the retail sale of cannabis as a
permitted use for discussion. purpose. I
will make that motion.
>> Second
discussion. Motion a second.
>> We do not have a second.
>> I'll second. I thought there was a
second.
>> You have time calling for a second.
>> Can you clarify that?
>> Yes. So the motion would be to adopt the
ordinance
uh but striking the uh retail sale of
cannabis at that site.
>> But the cultivation would be agreeable.
>> Yes.
With necessary improvements to the site
consistent with the master plan. Not
just you know
>> well as I read here the discussion in
here of the improvements that would be
required
so that would be stuff that would go
into the redeveloper agreement but they
would have to uh you know it's
consistent could be deemed consistent
with evaluating the highway commercial
uses uh improving the appearance of that
structure uh encouraging the development
of vacant or underutilized property
certainly.
Um, as far as the traffic hauling
devices, I don't that.
>> No, I I think
>> but three of the five uh could it could
still fit in. Yeah,
>> I think the mayor made a good point with
the economic value of this and and that
and I think that's important and but I
think that they have to negotiate
the real improvements to the property or
else it doesn't work
if the guy's willing to to make it a
first class operation. But that's up to
council. They have to negotiate that.
They have to be the ones that, you know,
bring the thing to where it needs to be.
I think they need the tools.
>> Well, I know we want to let them know
what we want, but would that be handled
at the site plan
>> here? They would come back here.
>> They're not exempt from coming here.
>> No, I I realize that, but can you put
those kind of conditions on this?
>> You can add full redevelopment.
>> You can make that part of your
recommendation back to city council.
Council, you know, take that and weigh
that and in discussions with the
redeveloper. And I think you put into
the resolution that goes back to council
that if if significant improvements are
not made to the site. It's not going to
be received uh cordally by the planning
board because that's one of the things
that need to be done. I think they have
to know upfront what is part of
resolution that it can't just be a
band-aid type improvement. It's got to
be made at first class operation.
>> So the the recommendation would be in
order to be consistent with the master
plan it would need to be a significant
visual improvement. It would need to um
you know further the goals advance the
goals of the master plan.
>> Correct.
>> Can you clarify what cultivation and
manufacturing are are two separate
things? Correct.
>> Two separate things. Cultivation
>> they're licensed separately.
>> They're licensed separately.
>> Different things mingle together. I just
wanted to clarity that cultivation and
manufacturing are not one and the same.
>> Cultivation is the actual growth of the
plant.
um
>> there thereafter for and it's grown it's
cured thereafter the manufacturing
uh utilizing the plant utilizing the
cannabis the THC and everything else to
manufacture something could take on many
different
uh you know uh visuals as long as it's
not manufacturing because I don't want
to open the door for other manufacturing
of any type
>> regardless of cannabis or not. Well, you
you did uh
>> master doesn't allow it. So that's why I
wanted to clarify motivation as compared
to
so
in that case it would be striking the
retail uh it would be striking class 5
and class two.
>> Make it as narrow and acceptable as
possible. And uh
>> so class one manufacturing
>> uh class one cultivation would be
>> just for the board's benefit
manufacturing includes just packaging
for retail. So if it's just cultivation
you could just grow it and then you
would have to take it somewhere else to
bag it
>> send it to stores
>> the the manufacturing license
>> and that's what I was trying to
>> package. That's why I was confused
because I thought there was I mean
>> manufacturing could be bottling, it
could be uh it could be baking
>> uh it could be so many different balls,
>> right?
>> It could be making loenes.
>> Mhm.
>> But it it also includes just
>> cutting up and putting in a package for
retails.
>> But when you want that as part of the
the operation,
>> uh the place probably they probably want
to be vertically integrated as much as
possible.
>> Yeah. Right.
That's why I said if there is a a retail
place near it, they probably will at
some point acquire it.
The for the benefit of the to get the
best bang out of your buck,
you
in my opinion, in my professional
opinion, uh you want to give them the
flexibility to have cultivation and
manufacturing
>> as long as they can change the the look.
You could condition it to say that it
would be limited to manufacturing of
products cultivated on site so that it
doesn't become a giant manufacturing.
>> Yeah, manufacturing is a compliment.
>> Can't bring it in.
>> So yeah, if they have to process to get
it out the door,
>> right? That's why I wanted to bring up
that that I hate to say it kind of makes
sense. You're not going to grow too many
to take the plant somebody else to pick
it.
>> That's that's why I wanted to bring up
like just bagging it is considered
manufacturing. So if you don't allow
them to do manufacturing, they can grow
it there and then take it somewhere else
to put it in a bag is kind of, you know,
>> yeah, we don't get much profit out of
it.
>> Certainly, but if you um you could
leave, like I said, you can condition
the manufacturing to be limited to the
cultivation that occurs at the on the
site.
>> So again, it's just a complimentary use
and not, you know, exclusive
manufacturing.
>> Okay.
So basically our our concern is is I
mean we're concerned about
>> I think overall the building it it's
just it's been an eye for for years and
years and years and just look at the
people across the street the residential
neighborhood. I mean I'm sure they
understand something's going to happen
over there because it is high
commercial. Um but we're big we're just
everybody's afraid that same thing is
you're putting lipstick on pink. They're
just going to stick a sign out there.
>> I can't miss this like an old.
>> All right. So, we have a motion. Before
we do the motion, I'd like to open it up
for the public. I did not open it up for
the public. Is there anybody in the
public who would like to speak?
>> Do you have an opinion on this, Mr. As?
>> I had opinion. I didn't think it's in
the growth development zone. My
perspective to come to the city and see
that that's just my opinion. And my
other concern would be is from the
growing manufacturing standpoint, how
would that affect the local community or
the house with the
so-called owners of the manufacturing
because everybody complains they put all
these garments and all that in doesn't
work.
>> I do the road clean up on Nevada Avenue.
I can smell that site all the way over
there at the laces or I do the road
clean up on Cologne Avenue. I can smell
the site that's on Cologne Avenue at the
old irrigation plant,
>> right?
>> And they're supposedly have the best
filtering system above and beyond what
the state called for. So I don't know
how that would affect the neighbors
because I know if I was a neighbor, I
wouldn't want every day. Yeah,
>> there's no fact no public here.
>> Okay. Thank you, Mr. H.
>> I have a question.
>> I I don't know if it can be answered
right now, but my question is how much
are they
willing to invest in this building? How
much?
>> I don't.
>> That's what we'll find out. That's why
they have to go back and when they tell
him he's got to put up a decent building
and and meet the standards, we're going
to know,
>> right?
>> Or else if he comes back to us, then
he's going to have to meet it. If he
doesn't, then it's on him.
>> And assuming you approved it, he would
have to come back to the board. The last
applicant we had at the set, we made
them provide architectural elevation
plans so we could see exactly what is
building.
>> Yeah. There really is no
no uh we've had a guy come in here with
12-in concrete walls and another guy
came in here with the with a greenhouse.
>> So those were in the industrial parks.
We were a little more open. Um for here
we would it would be held to the city's
design standards. Any business in the
the
>> court?
It's just a change of use. So they're
not changing. No, the nitrogen.
>> Don't they still have to deal with that?
>> They don't have to deal with storm water
because they're not increasing in
various services.
>> So,
>> wait a minute. Don't they have to do the
whole time to reconstruct?
There is a motion
>> and I got to eat before I take
>> There is a motion to uh
adopt uh to make a recommendation to
city council to uh pass the ordinance
adopting an amendment to the
redevelopment plan for the gateway re
rehabilitation area uh with the
exception of or striking the retail sale
cannabis uh which is a class 5 license
and limiting
uh permitting cultivation and
manufacturing limited to the product
that is cultivated on site.
So that's the motion. That is the
second. Uh you need a vote to yes vote
would be
>> done
>> to make it with those recommendations.
>> This is the third motion.
>> The second one still the second one.
Okay.
>> First one we rejected, right?
>> Okay.
I think the first bill was probably
all over
>> Mr. Guard.
>> Yes,
>> Mr. Walberg.
>> No,
>> let me let me let me give my reason.
>> I have voted yes on every grow that we
had in this city and I just don't think
that this is the right spot for it. I'd
like to see that area have something
really nice in it when you enter the
city and I just I'm just against it.
It's it's a residential area so I just I
just would have to vote no on it.
>> Mr. Mullen.
>> Yes.
>> Mrs. Torres.
>> No.
Do you want to give a reason or my Mr.
Frick?
>> Uh, no.
I I just I kind of agree. I don't think
it's it's the place for
>> Mr. Peterson.
>> No.
>> Mr.
>> Yes.
>> It's a vote of four nos, three yeses. So
the motion fails. So uh
there will be a
letter sent to city council indicating
that the planning board uh chose not to
uh approve the proposed ordinance
adopting an amendment to the gateway
rehabilitation area.
You have to go back to the drawing. You
come back
if I don't
the end of February.
>> All right. Turn it back up.
>> Okay. Uh we're going to move on to old
business. We have no old business.
>> No old business.
>> Uh council report. We have a council
report.
>> Uh just that um
come to the Memorial Day service on
Monday.
I think every I think it starts at 11
this year, but you might want to check
Facebook.
Um, that's about it really. Um, I do
have a intern. She might be here the
next meeting from Penn State. She's
going to help out at city hall. She's
going to help Donna out for a few weeks
and then help the police out for a
couple weeks.
>> So, it'll be interesting and hopefully
you'll get to meet her. She's learned a
lot already today from from Donna and uh
it's all good good stuff.
How about the citywide cleanup? How'd
that turn out?
>> 2.87 tons of trash entered the phone
while you
>> 265 volunteers. So very
>> very professional about the same
>> within one year garbage.
>> Think about doing it for 18 years. Do
that matter.
>> Yeah.
>> That's how much trash has been pulled
out of
>> scary that people don't earn.
>> Just toss it out the window.
>> Yeah. I I can't think of anything else
only because I wasn't at the last
council meeting because most of you know
that Meg's uh son Jeffrey got married
and moved down to Florida for the
wedding. So, but nothing really new that
unless you have some questions for me. I
happy to answer them.
>> Any questions? Anything? Okay, moving
on. Public comments. Have anybody in the
public that would like to speak again?
>> No, I just like to know how many
organizations do you have? Do you have
any idea for Memorial Day?
>> Uh, same as last year and we we added
one. So, I'm going to say I don't I
don't remember cuz I think I'm bullet
pointed in that number on my sheet.
Probably close to 20, I guess.
>> Okay. Uh, question and comments from the
board.
>> All good. Motion.
>> Motion to adjurnn.
>> Second.
Oh yeah,
he stopped.
Unc.