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. >> 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 maintaining. 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 >> 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.