[Applause] This is a zoning board meeting of October 16, 2025 in accordance with the open public meetings act PL1975 chapter 231 adequate notice of this regular meeting of the zoning board of
the township of Franklin's been provided. Board members, applicants, professionals, and members of the public, please speak directly into the microphone so our recording secretary can properly process minutes. Applicants and professionals, please fill out the sheet on the table when you've completed
your testimony. Uh, okay. Would you please call the role? >> Yes. Cheryl Pado >> here. >> Richard Protasnik >> here. >> Basim Baradis >> here. >> Alan Rich >> here.
>> Gary Rosenthal >> here. >> Robert Shepard >> here. >> Barz Khan >> here. Michael Doherty >> here. >> Kunai Lai here.
>> Jabdu Singh. >> Robert Thomas >> here. Uh, no minutes. Uh, resolution for the bounce air adventure park ZBA 250019.
>> Mr. Chairman, the eligible members to vote on this are yourself, Mr. Sheepard, Mr. Ferdis, Mr. Rich, Mr. Rosenthal, Mr. Dowy, and Mr. Leia. >> I'll move it. >> I'll second.
>> Could you repeat that, please? >> The motion was made by Mr. >> Carrie Rosen. Carrie Rosen and the second by Vice Chairman Shepard. >> Okay. All right. Parades.
>> The Paradis. >> Yes. >> Alan. >> Alan Ridge. >> Yes. >> Gary Rosenthal. >> Here. I mean, yes. >> Robert Shepard. >> Yes. >> Michael Doherty.
>> Yes. >> Kunai Lai. >> Yes. >> Robert Thomas. >> Yes. >> Seven in favor, none against. Motion passes. >> Okay. Hearings tonight. JC Acquisitions
LLC ZBA25020 D1 use variance preliminary final major site plan with C variances in which the applicants apply to develop the site with an outdoor storage facility 945 throughout 27 Somerset block 88.01 lot
7.01 in the B1 zone. This is carried to November 20th. If you're here for that will not be heard, right? November 20th. No further notification. Somerset Bible Baptist Church ZBA 25004.
CND variances in which the applicant's asking permission to build a one-story 35- ft tall 8,640 ft gymnasium at 42 Cedar Grove Lane Somerset block 424.02
lot 12.02 in the R40 zone that is carried to December 4th. No further further notification. So anyone here for that will be December 4th hearing for the business. Let's say we will
conduct tonight Hound 543 ZVA 250015. Applicant has requested the board reconsider their D1 use variance in which they were asking permission to operate the cannabis dispensary at 1695
Amwell Road, Somerset Block. 386.04 lots 36 to 38 in the R20 zone. We were supposed to have this reconsideration last week. The uh applicants entitled to
have a full uh board of seven people who are eligible to vote which we didn't have for this application. So, it was moved this week and we do have uh a full
board eligible to vote. U now this is a different process than usual. Uh do you want to enlighten us a little bit? >> Mr. Chairman, just for reference, the applicant
was denied at the August 8th, 2025 meeting. The vote was four in favor, three against. However, for a DU's variance, you need five votes. So, the motion failed. The applicant has the right to seek
reconsideration of the board's decision and has applied to do so with the caveat that there is a need to supplement the record relative to the application to indicate why the applicant believes the
board with additional information should, for lack of a better phrase, reconsider its prior decision. Now the board can still at the end of the app at the end of the presentation come to the same conclusion it came to come to a
different conclusion or no conclusion technically but I would not obviously recommend the same. Um it is the applicant's obligation to provide additional information. My understanding is that Mr. Duca has
provided previously to all of you a letter dated September the 5th, 2025, at least to Miss Woodbury, who is not here this evening because of health, for a reconsideration. That, by the way, in and of itself does not suffice as
testimony. He is going to have to put additional He's going to have to put witnesses on. Some may be the same, some may be different with new information in an attempt to have you reconsider the decision you rendered on August the 8th.
Until the presentation of the reconsidered material is concluded, the board will take no action. And once it is concluded, the board will take an action. And ostensibly, the request will be a motion for the board to reconsider
and approve. But we'll get to that when Mr. Ducha is done telling you his story. >> So So there's there's two votes by the board. >> One one the board vote will be well twofold.
The board vote will be to reconsider the application. If the board chooses to reconsider the application and grant the approval, it will be one vote. If the board chooses to reconsider the application and turn the reconsideration
down, the second vote will be to adopt the memorializing resolution that the board memorializing the actions of the board on August the 8th. That'll be the second vote if there is a second vote. >> May I just ask one point of clarification?
>> Yeah. So, um, obviously, uh, Mr. Bernstein, as you're aware, and perhaps this board is aware, uh, the reconsideration procedure is not explicitly spelled out in municipal land use law. So, there is some leeway that boards have across the state of New Jersey to adopt reconsideration
procedures. Uh, when we had previously discussed with Mr. Brian Hack, who was the board council at the previous meeting, uh, it was our understand, and I'm not I'm not pushing back. I just wanted to clarify. Uh it was our understanding that there would be an initial vote whether to reconsider which
it was our understanding would would require a bare majority and then we would proceed with a reconsideration >> hearing then >> and then and then that would be on the D1 use variance rel presuming that reconsideration is approved then there
would be a rehearing in which case at the end there would be the D1 vote which requires five out of seven. So in essence, the first vote is a vote whether the board will even reconsider the application. >> That was my understanding. >> And my question is, are we uh involved
in entertaining public input at any point till we get to the second part? If we get to it, >> I don't believe you are board public issue relative to the first motion. I
think that's a procedural motion and does not require necessarily public input on it unless the board chooses to open it up to the public. If it chooses to do so, it does so. But the municipal land use law and the bylaw do not
require a public hearing on the motion to reconsider. >> Okay. And we'll turn it over to you. Thank you very much uh for uh entertaining that back and forth. It's very very much
appreciated. So um chairman, board members, Mr. Bernstein, Mr. Gregory, my name is John Duca. I'm with the law firm Salvos Shock. I'm here tonight representing the applicant Houndtown 543 Incorporated. Once again, as you know, this property that uh the application is
for is located at 16995 Amwell Road. That's designated as block 68.04. 04 lots 36, 37, and 38 in the R20 zone where the proposed use is not permitted. This is a residential zone,
and we are proposing a class 5 cannabis retail dispensary. The relief we will ultimately request tonight is D1 is a D1 use variance. Before we get to the D1 use variance, as we just discussed, uh we're requesting that the board grant
reconsideration to reopen the record for a limited rehearing and revote on two key issues. Those two key issues are the proximity of this proposed location to other so-called sensitive uses within Franklin Township compared to other
dispensaries that are already operating within Franklin Township and their proximities to so-called sensitive uses. The other issue that we intend to address tonight is the applicant's efforts to identify and evaluate other potentially suitable properties within
Franklin Township for this particular establishment and include the reasons why those alternative sites were determined to be unavailable or unsuitable. So, in the interest of justice and for good cause, the applicant respect respectfully requested the board vote in
favor of reconsidering the application and reopened the record for a limited rehering on these issues. At the prior hearing, when the B board rendered his vote, as Mr. Bernstein indicated, it resulted in four yes votes and three no votes. As this board understands nos, a
use variance requires five yes votes. The application was statutoily denied despite obtaining a majority yes votes. As each board member voted, each board member stated his or her reasons for their vote, whether it was a
yes vote or or a denial. Based on the board members comments and rendering their vote, it was apparent to the applicant that the primary bases for denial was the per the perception that this establishment would be too close to sensitive uses like schools and houses
of worship and also the lack of evidence presented concerning the applicant's efforts to open this location or open this establishment at another location. So tonight, with additional testimony and additional exhibits, we hope to adequately address those two key issues.
And to be clear, we're not requesting to start the whole hearing over. Uh there is an existing record, including the applicant's prior submissions and the prior hearing before the board. And though that record should still be relied upon relied upon on any vote that this board takes tonight. Now, it's our
intention to build on that existing record to address the issues I mentioned. Now that existing record includes all the typical submissions of a use variance application in Franklin Township. It includes the application form, architectural drawings, the boundary and topographical survey. It
included a traffic and parking assessment and all the other items on the variance application checklist. That existing record also includes all the testimony that the board heard during the prior hearing. There were four witnesses at the prior hearing. You
heard from Gary Bernett, the owner and operator, proposed operator of the establishment. You heard from Marcus Rosenau, who was our architect. You heard from Rihanna Kirchoff, our traffic engineer. And finally, you heard from Kevin O'Brien, our professional planner. Now, you may recall we relied upon a
PowerPoint presentation that displayed uh maps, images, architectural drawings. Uh it had a traffic table and other operational information about the proposed establishment. We had marked that in evidence as A1 at the previous hearing.
So for tonight's request for reconsideration, uh, as Mr. Bernstein noted earlier, the applicant did submit a letter dated September 5th, which articulated the request for reconsideration. It explained which witnesses the applicant intended to call tonight in the event of
a re-haring, and it also described the facts that the applicant intends to establish through additional evidence. So, in that in that letter submitted along with it, the applicant identified those additional exhibits and uh what it intends to rely on at tonight's hearing.
And those include exhibit A2 uh which is a a new PowerPoint slide that we'll we will go through and uh if I may digress for a second, would are we able to turn on the monitors just so that the the public has the benefit of seeing what's displayed? I know I passed out paper
copies of that exhibit, but uh this way everybody has the benefit of seeing what we're all looking at. So, so this is an exhibit we would hope to mark as A2. Um the next exhibit we would hope to mark we would mark as A3 and that's the New
Jersey Cannabis Regulatory Enforcement Assistance and Market Modernization Act. It's known as the Cream Act. I'm holding it right here. Here's a copy of it. and we would want to enter that uh into evidence should we have the opportunity. The next exhibit which would be A4 would
be the regulations promugated by the New Jersey Cannabis Regulatory Commission pursuant to the cream act. I have a copy of them here as well and that we hope would be marked as A4. Moving on, A5 would be ordinance number 4340-21.
That was an ordinance by Franklin Township in Somerset County, New Jersey, permitting the operation of any class of cannabis business within its geographical boundaries, and amending chapter 112 of the Franklin Township land development regulations by creating
new chapter 346 entitled establishment of cannabis transfer tax and user tax in Franklin Township. Finally, exhibit A6 would be another Franklin Township ordinance, an ordinance amending the code of the Township of Franklin, County of
Somerset, State of New Jersey, with a new chapter 92 cannabis regulating retail cannabis dispensaries in Franklin Township. Concerning the witnesses I would intend to call tonight, there would be three witnesses. One new witness who you did not previously hear
from, uh, his name is Edward Lanetski. He's the applicant's cannabis consultant. He is an expert in the cannabis industry throughout the country, not just the state of New Jersey, but he would provide his credentials to you and why he's considered a cannabis expert, and he
would testify and explain about uh the proximity to uses and the state's regulatory scheme around proximity to such uses. I would also recall Mr. Gary Bernett, the uh owner and operator of the establishment, who would describe his efforts uh that he undertook to find
other suitable locations and why those locations turned out not to be suitable. And then I would also recall Mr. Kevin O'Brien, our professional planner, who would explain why this new evidence bolsters and and satisfies the positive
and negative criteria under the municipal land use law as is required for D1 use variants. So, with that in mind, while we're still in the request for reconsideration portion of tonight's hearing, I would like to briefly call uh Mr. Edward Lanki and Mr. Gary Bernett so
you can hear from them directly. uh just a little bit of a preview of what uh they would testify to uh during during a re-hearing. So, if I could call >> Wait, wait. I I appreciate that you've sort of like thought this all through
and you've been uh ready to go here, but I'm I'm Tell me again what exhibit Exhibit three is the CRE Act. >> Yes, exhibit three. So, >> what's exhibit four? >> Exhibit four. So this New Jersey state
legislature adopts statutes and sometimes those statutes create regulatory agencies. In this case, the CRE Act created the New Jersey Cannabis Commission and Exhibit 4 are the regulations that that commission
promulgated >> and we need to introduce that entire document. >> I'm not asking that the board review this entire document. And I'm asking it that it may be made part of the record. And I think Mr. Litzki would provide testimony based on these documents. He
he's thoroughly reviewed these documents and he's formed an expert opinion on the regulatory scheme for cannabis in the state of New Jersey and why our proposal fits within that regulatory scheme. >> Okay, I get it now.
>> So, if I could if I could call Mr. We'll start start with Mr. Mr. Bernett, we might change up the order slightly if reconsideration is granted and they are provide allowed to give their full testimony, but Mr. Bernett is the face of this operation. He's the owner and
operator. So, if he could be sworn in to give you a brief testimonial preview, >> Mr. Bernett, would you raise your right hand, please? The te the limited testimony you are about to give, and I underlined the word limited, is the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth. So help you God. >> So help me God. >> State your full name. Spell your last name for the record, please. >> Gary Bernett. B U R N T. >> Okay. >> Mr. Duca, I again remind you and based on your presentation. Limited.
>> Yes. So Mr. Brunette, if you could give the board a brief preview on what they will fully hear during a re-haring, assuming they grant reconsideration. >> Perfect. Um, thank you. Good night to the board, chairman, members of the zoning board. Uh my name is Gary
Bernett. It's certainly a privilege to be before you again and to call Franklin Township my home for over 17 years. Um during this time uh as a Franklin resident, I've dedicated myself to positively contributing to this
community both through my personal efforts and financial investments. I've invested hardearned savings to purchase a home here, establish my business, and I'm here because I believe in the potential and the future of
Franklin Township. However, I'm here to bring you bring to your attention the significant challenges that I have faced in trying to locate suitable real estate for my cannabis business. I've diligently s searched and evaluated
multiple properties only to find that the options are limited. often not compliant with zoning requirements. There are restrictions due to federal mortgage guidelines or simply not available, not within my budget due to the green tax.
The real estate market for this purpose is highly competitive and it's restrictive and it makes it exceedingly slow and difficult and timeconuming to secure good property. Despite these challenges, I'm pleased to
say that I found a favorable landlord who's willing to work with me and accommodate my needs. This possible relationship would not only help overcome some of these obstacles, but ensure that I can operate
reasonably and in accordance with all regulations, contributing positively to Franklin Township. That is my goal. Beyond overcoming beyond this ongoing efforts to establish my business, I continue to be actively
involved in supporting local causes such as the Franklin Food Bank golf outing, the tour to Franklin, which is only building on my years of coaching Franklin Township recreational soccer team. I've been involved. These efforts reflect my genuine commitment to
fostering a stronger and more positive community. I respectfully ask you to consider not only the hurdles I've encountered in trying to find an appropriate location, but also my sincere dedication and
positive contribution over the years. My actions are driven by a genuine passion to be a responsible and active member of Franklin Township. I humbly seek to your understanding and compassion as I present my case today,
trusting that my intentions and efforts are rooted in the best interest of this community. Thank you. >> Thank you. If I could now call uh Mr. Edward Letski. >> Mr. Lanetski, raise your right hand,
please. testimony. The limited testimony you're about to give >> is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So, I help you God. >> Yes. >> State your full name, spell your last name for you, the record, and your qualification. >> Of course. First name is Edward Edu A D.
Last name is Lynetski. L I N E T S K I Y. I'm a cannabis compliance and operations expert with a focus on retail, but up and down the supply chain. have operated and helped companies large and small across the country in at least 10 states. I've
helped many applicants with their licensing application uh meetings such as this. I've dealt with many state and local regulators at the municipal level, at the regulatory level across the board and participated in some helping with some policy writing
as well. And I'm here today to help the applicant present their case for their location and discuss the perceived sensitive uses that were brought to attention last time and present information that was not provided last
time about other locations within the township and their distance to perceive sensitive usage such as schools and houses of worship. And uh more than happy to go into that much further um with the assumption and the hope that uh the applicant who's gone to a lot of
extent uh to bring this to your attention uh to present you with further information so we can dive into deeper and to see that his location uh meets these sensitive perceived sensitive uses um and comparison to others as well. So, I just have a few more brief
comments before I I ultimately request the board render a vote on reconsideration. So, um, while the testimony of Marcus Rosenau, our our architect, and Rihanna Kirchoff, our traffic traffic expert, do remain part of the record, uh, we will not recall them as witnesses tonight because the
limited scope of the additional EV evidence that we intend to present would not impact or change any of their uh, testimony or any facts or opinions uh, they previously described. So, additionally, based on the comments from the board members that we heard when
they rendered their vote, uh, at the conclusion of the previous hearing, it was apparent to the applicant that it wasn't a matter of traffic or architectural design why there were three no votes against the application. So, to reiterate our request for
reconsideration to reopen the record for a limited reharing and revote, uh, we want to address two key issues. That's the proximity of other class 5 cannabis retail dispensaries within Franklin Township to education to to schools,
child care centers, houses of worship or other so-called sensitive uses compared to the subject property. And then we also want to highlight the applica the applicant's efforts to identify and evaluate potentially suitable locations for this establishment. and then we will describe the reasons why those
alternative locations ultimately were not suitable or available. So, in the interest of justice and for good cause, the applicant respectfully requests that this board vote in favor of reconsideration and reopen the record for a limited
reharing on these issues. Thank you. >> Okay. Is there any uh one who has any questions you want to ask anybody? Anyone have any comments? >> See, can we see if there's a motion for reconsideration and then we can have
comments from the board? >> Well, >> yeah. >> I think we need to Oh, all right. Um uh I move that uh we grant um the applicant uh >> Houndtown
uh uh a uh uh the uh right to reconsider um the uh decision previously rendered by the board. Um >> is there a second? >> I second. any discussion?
>> Um I I think we I think we heard uh enough the first time around. Um I uh um I I think that uh I'm not quite sure how the the fact that that the applicant has
been unable to find a site other than uh the location uh currently uh being considered. how that fits at all into our decision as to whether allow to allow a D1 variance
um uh to uh allow him to uh put his uh um cannabis business in in the location that's um currently before the um uh the board on this application.
Um, and I I don't I'm going to vote uh uh no, not to reconsider. >> Any other discussion? I would just say that I think there's been enough presented that we
uh at least have an obligation to hear the the details and the new information doesn't mean anybody has to change their mind. >> Any other discussion? call. >> Could you uh
>> could you just re remind me on that address 1695 Amwell? How far up on Amwell is that? >> It's it's right at right >> it's right at the corner here of Amuel and Deont.
>> Oh, okay. That's what I thought. >> Do you have you have a list of who can vote, right? >> Everybody. >> Yes. >> So, this this vote will be reconsideration. >> This vote is to allow Mr. Duca to bring
witnesses back to give you reasons to potentially reconsider your decision >> with a yes vote >> with the yes is to grant reconsideration. No is to against granting it, which is basically upholding the board's prior decision.
>> Okay, with that >> with that um Cheryl Pao. Yes, I'm I'm saying yes to reconsider. >> And Richard, excuse me, Richard Pactic. >> Yes. >> Bim Baradus, >> yes.
>> Alan Rich, >> yes. >> Gary Rosenthal, >> I'll vote yes. >> Robert Shepard, >> no. Barz Khan, >> no.
>> Michael Dherty, >> yes. Kunai Lai. >> Yes. >> Robert Thomas. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> In reality, actually, one of those we'll
have to figure it out before the full vote. One member can't all basically need is, you know, seven. But the mo the vote clearly passes. >> All right. I I was going to ask that question. So, I appreciate you. >> It's a this is a n this is a nine member board.
So actually only nine members can be voting. >> Well, it's a is it not a seven member board? >> Well, yes, it's seven with four. My mistake. So seven with four, which means only seven of you have to vote. So >> before we call the vote again, I need the roster for a second.
>> Okay. >> Okay. What just happened? >> What just happened? >> What just happened? >> I'm going to call the roll again, folks. I apologize because some of you didn't
have the right to vote. >> Miss Bethea, >> yes. >> Mr. Panic, >> yes. >> Mr. Furtis, >> Miss But yes,
>> Miss Sorryari, I apologize. Sorry, >> Mr. Rich. Yes, >> Mr. Rosenthal. >> Yes, >> Mr. Shepard. >> Yes. >> You're vote. You're voting yes. Thank >> you. I'm sure >> Mr. Thomas.
>> Yes. >> Okay. >> I thought I persuaded you there. >> No. >> Six in favor, one against. The other four members are alternates and in the absence of parties are not eligible to vote. So, the motion does carry >> irrespective.
>> Okay. you're on for the >> Well, first of all, I'd like to thank the board for giving us this opportunity to present the re-haring and reconsideration. Um, I I'll I'll keep my opening comments brief. I I did prepare a more thorough opening statement, but now sitting here before you, it seems a
bit redundant. So, the one thing I do want to highlight in my opening statement, obviously, we are seeking D1 use variance relief. It is for a cannabis retail dispensary at 1695 Amwell Road. uh no other forms of relief are being sought. The location of this property, as I just noted, is at the
corner of uh Amwell Road and Damont Lane. That site has been a commercial use for over a hundred years. So, we put on testimony and exhibits at our last hearing explaining why it's particularly well well suited for this use, a a
commercial retail use. All the other sites on the property are commercial retail uses. So, we want to maintain uh that type of character for the site. So, uh rather than dragging on any further than is necessary, I'm going to ask that
my first witness, he's already sworn in to testify, but it will be uh Edward Lanekki. >> One question. We didn't I didn't think we would have to do it in the first presentation. Do we qualify him now as an expert? >> Well, actually, Mr. Lanetski can't be
qualified as an expert because cannabis is not a recognized professional. He can be c he can be called for the purposes of his expertise but he does not hold a license. He does not have a professional degree.
There's a question whether even you and I well but >> I I I understand the distinction that >> so so for the board's edification more than for yours. He is not the typical engineer or planner or architect that you would see. This gentleman I believe
is being offered up with as an expertise in the industry and therefore to the extent he can give you his interpretations, his experience, his knowledge but he is not a traditional
expert in the way you normally would see a presentation unlike for example Mr. O'Brien who is a professional planner and a licensed to practice in the state of New Jersey. So >> yeah, and I I would concur to the extent that a common question you might hear
for when you're qualifying an expert is is your license in good standing? Now it's my understanding that there's no license to be in good standing. Is that correct? >> That's correct. >> Now, however, um could you please explain your educational background to the board? Yes, >> I figured.
>> But let me pause. I don't want you to to downgrade Mr. Lanetsk's testimony because he's not a licensed professional, but you he does not get to be qualified as such. And obviously the questions you may have and the testimony
that Mr. Duca is going to have to present will be in a slightly different fashion I assume John than you would normally have for traditional engineer etc. >> Fair enough. So with that please explain your educational background. So, thank you for granting the rehearing little
bit longer presentation of my expertise. So, by background, I'm a lifetime regulatory compliance expert with over 20 years of regulatory compliance and audit experience starting out in the financial industry. I finished uh NYU
for my MBA. I was a financial and operations auditor for the New York Stock Exchange and I worked for a lot of financial institutions and had many licenses which were caught in the financial side. And then uh in 2017 I changed over to the cannabis industry
specifically on the regulatory side and have operated within the regulatory side of the business since then. Um by initially starting building out one of the first and at that time one of the largest regulatory compliance departments for a company that was
nationwide. I ran the compliance compliance like day-to-day compliance as well as licensing. So read many regulations, state leg regulations, local regulations, analyzed, prepared audits, prepared compliance memos, spoke to many state legislatures about the
qual the quality of the regulations, how to make the regulations make more sense, how to make them easier to understand and just how to make them in the framework that business operators such as Gary can operate within those regulations in a way that the business is sustainable. So since December of
2017, I have been in fully in this industry and while I there are no licenses per se that can qualify me that would be recognized. I would like to think that as a regulatory expert uh I'm regulatory expert in this industry as well
and I would like to present some of the information here that we bring to you. So to start off and go back to a a comment before in terms of the regulations and the state legislation that came through. So the regulations that come from the legislation, they promagate what rules various operators
such as class 5 cannabis retails must oper operate under. And very frequently they discuss things such as sensitive uses, how close you can or cannot be to things like parks, uh daycare facilities, schools, or whatnot. The way
that New Jersey issued the regulations and the and the legislation is they were very intentional in the sense that they wanted to normalize this industry. And they basically said that in very few words that wherever general retail can be located, a cannabis dispensary can go
as well because they wanted to be normalized. They wanted to remove the stigma. They wanted to avoid the things that are going on anyway in the industry and really focus on legalization of cannabis and normalization of cannabis just like any other you know crop let's say. So both the state regulations and
then as a result the local township ordinance did not place any limitations on where dispensaries can be located within the proximity of other perceived sensitive uses which is a very common term in the industry across many jurisdictions. are called sensitive uses just because you know we kind of see
them that way right so in that sense just to close that out we can locate more more or less within reason wherever we want based on the regulations but what I wanted to point out is currently where uh the township dispensers are
located and if we could take a look at this exhibit here and there is more information behind it for other locations we've just highlighted a few here what you will notice between here and the next slide about this location and Subnet is looking at is that it is actually much further from these
perceived sensitive uses than some of the existing operators right now. So >> Mr. Let me at least interrupt you. This is A2. >> Yeah, this is the second sheet of A2. >> For purposes of the board, for those of
you who have your sheets, Mr. Duke has indicated the second. >> Thank you. I appreciate that. >> Everybody was >> for the record. Thank you. >> No problem. >> So, um I'm just going to kind of go down
the list here. Um some you may or may not know some of these names, some of these locations that have been opened up, but so the dispensary of Somerset, which is uh if you're looking at the monitor at the top left, you will note that um the lots where they're located
on are near 200 ft away from each other and doortodoor from the dispensary to the school is 440 ft door approximately. If you move continue to move to city root dispensary, they share a parking lot with a church and they're 100 ft
doortodoor. There are other sensitive uses, perceived sensitive uses fairly close where there as well and I can go into that. Uh there's an um in the appendixes there's more information about those other ones. We're calling out some of the kind of the closest ones. They're more in focus. Herb's
premium dispensary is approximately 800 feet from New Brunswick High School and 200 feet from a church. Greeney dispensary is less than 550 ft door to door from Frankie Township Youth Center and is right next to a church right on the other corner. Timber 5 is less than
200 feet from a daycare center, 300 feet from a church. And Theo Cannabis is across the street from a preschool sapling school and less than 300 feet from six mile run reform church. So, as you can see, there are other existing dispensaries that are within relatively
close proximity, what you would maybe call from what is a perceived sensitive use. And the reason they're there is because based on Franklin Township ordinance, that is permissible. And mind you, also they're operating because the state also gave them the license. So the state qual review these locations and
qualify them to be in compliance with state regulations since the state's regulations do not call out any distance requirements from a sensitive use. So I want to pause see if there's any questions. >> Uh I I just you know why don't you continue? Yeah. Okay.
>> So >> we're going to call this also A2 by the board. Yeah. >> Any questions on this page of the exhibit from the board? So, moving on to the subject site, we just discussed where it is. It's fairly
close to here. And we we kind of pointed out a few more distances than just doortodoor, but to start there, 700 ft door to door from the temple, 1,400 ft from the Samson building door to door. So as you can see if you're looking at prior numbers
provided to sensitive uses schools, churches, daycare centers, the this proposed location is quite a bit further than some of the existing operating locations. Furthermore, if you're looking at just the traffic patterns, you're looking at 700 ft from the
entrance on deont and 1300 ft on Amwell. So, while we're pointing these out to go back to the initial notion is that based on regulations um at all levels within New Jersey and Franklin Township, this
would be considered a compliant location based on any perceived sensitive uses. So the the only um thing I want to note for the board obviously uh flipping back to sheet two none of these dispensaries appeared uh before this board. Uh and
the reason is they didn't require uh D1 use variance relief. Uh obviously we do require D1 use fairance relief and you'll hear later in the presentation how not only this site but the surrounding area um really is not not
used for for residential purposes. So we highlight the proximities of these uses being closer to those sensitive uses such as schools and houses of worship and the further distance for our site from
uh you know uh education daycare centers and houses of worship. So uh with with that my next un unless the board has any uh questions for Mr. Lynki and he's not going anywhere. If you questions come up he'll be accessible but I would like to call my next witness. So, Mr. Lansky, so
the uh this site has been approved by the state of New Jersey uh and this is the last stop before you have uh complete approval.
>> So, that's a that's a great question. So, the way that No, sorry. the the so the way the process works um at the state level once um the municipality provides their approval then you apply to the state right so Mr. Bernett
currently has a license. So this would be location, but from a state perspective, this site would qualify and would be compliant. So it' really be an administrative process. So uh from a sensitive because as you could see at the other locations which are much closer in this location to any sensitive
use, they receive their state level approvals. >> Wasn't that interesting? It's so you don't get your state approval first, you get your municipal approval first. >> Correct. and then go back to the state. >> Correct. Yeah. The state application
process is while it's invasive, let's just say a lot of documentation, a lot of paperwork, a lot of procedures, um the municipal approval aspect of it is key. Um and as you as the board may be aware, so Mr. Bernett was part of the
initial applicants and is part of once the ordinance was updated to the was it 18 I believe. Yeah, they limit it to 18 >> 18 licenses within Franklin Township. So, Mr. Brent is part of those first 18 licenses that is grandfathered before the change to the Franklin Township
ordinance. >> Okay. Since you're really only uh talking limited witnesses, we won't open till the public until you finish your presentation. >> Okay. Appreciate that. >> I I have I have another
question. it it just comes up because now we're talking about something being grandfathered. Um, and I I may not either remember that from the earlier testimony or whatever. Um, what was
changed in the ordinance? >> So, there was there was no hard limit on the number of licenses that the municipality could issue. >> Oh. >> And then they they did impose a hard limit at 18. Mr. Bernett holds one of those 18. >> Okay. Okay. So, I think the term
grandfathered might have been used loosely. He >> That's pretty good. I like it. >> All right. All right. >> Yeah. He was grandfathered. >> Yeah. >> Yep. And uh so that that is the nature of that limitation and his his holding of a license. >> Okay. And there's no there's no
limitation issues at the state level. It's only at the municipal level. And the uh that um uh that ordinance now limits uh the
number of uh dispensaries to 18. Uh but it didn't before, but he's already got one uh that's in the 18. Okay. >> And and while we're still on Mr. Lanetski's testimony about proximity.
Those ordinances uh allowing for up to 18 licenses, they don't uh they don't limit where those licenses can be located. Your zoning ordinance limits where those licenses can be located. That's why we're before this board.
>> So, it's not it's not a specific regulation against cannabis retailers being in any particular location. It's we're in a residential zone even though this has been a commercial property for 100 years and it's surrounded by many commercial uses. That's why we're before this board.
>> Really? 100 years? >> Really? That that was revealed to me at the last hearing. That was uh Mr. Healey put that on the record. >> Well, I can only go back 50 years. I know it was a gas station and among other things.
>> I have a question. >> Any other questions? >> Yes. Um so to follow up on the restrictions the fact that there is not it's only on the num the municipality local level put
it on the number but not the location. The reason and this is a question. The reason that this uh application was submitted is
primarily because it is a nonconforming use. >> Correct. If we wanted to open a coffee shop, we would be before this board. If we wanted to open a bakery, we would be before this board. And all of the other ones that were shown as examples, they
were in a location that permitted that use. >> That's correct. >> Okay. See, that's why they >> Any other questions? >> Go ahead. >> Next.
>> All right. Uh, my next witness is Mr. Bernett, who was sworn in to testify. You heard before him at the last hearing. Uh, he is the owner and operator of the proposed establishment. >> Thank you. Um, I want to thank the board for this um opportunity and
reconsideration of this application. And I understand that you know this is a um challenging topic for the ward but certainly want to thank you for that opportunity to represent. Look I understand that this is a very sensitive right topic and
this team has taken a a very meticulous approach as you can tell stacks of papers. Um, we've taken a very meticulous approach to request this with some deep respect for the community and the values and for the public safety and
the integrity of the zoning board. So, what I'd like to illustrate to you on this slide is a a subset of locations we looked at uh within the township. By no means is this an exhaustive list, but it's enough just to illustrate some of the challenges that we faced.
We're going to mark this A2B. >> A2B. >> A2B. So, I'll start with U20 Cedar Grove Lane. >> The next page in your packet, folks. >> Probably one of the busiest corners in
Franklin Township. Uh, this is where your Starbucks is located on the corner of U New Brunswick and Cedar Grove Lane. Um, several retail locations at this facility. The landlord will not rent the cannabis despite the number of vacancies
at that complex. 147153 Pierce uh brand new complex um houses your citizens bank, child care center, um restaurant. Um the landlord will not rent the
cannabis due to their mortgage restrictions. All right. federally their mortgage will not allow them to um rent the cannabis locations despite the number of retail locations there. Going further to 101 Randolph, there
happens to be a liquor store and a bar in that complex. It's fairly new. This is very close to Canal Walk. Very same thing. um approached the landlord before the complex was fully occupied and it was a resounding no, we will not rent the cannabis
despite having um space in the complex. Several locations along Route 27, 3550 Route 27, 3391, again locations that currently house um
liquor stores. um multiple vacant space within those um complexes. >> Next page, folks, by the way, >> the landlords will not rent to. So it's clear just based on this subset
that I'm presenting today, right, that landlords have an aversion to cannabis for a variety of reasons, but we would think it's mainly more because of the stigma and the perception of the plant
as opposed to the actual facts. So, I'd just like to, you know, just bring a couple points, I mean, to the attention of the board in considering this. Legal cannabis is one of the most heavily regulated industries in the
state with strict restrictions for security, licensing, product quality, employee background checks. This is not an underground venture. This is not an unregulated venture. This is a legitimate state supervised business
that can stimulate local growth and stability. We heard a lot about public safety and compliance. Contrary to the lingering stigma, studies show that licensed dispensaries
are associated with lower rates of neighborhood crime compared to areas where they're in an unregulated market. We're committed to being a model operator that enhance rather than disrupt public safety.
I'd like to address the stigma. I think that's what brought us here. We recognize that cannabis still carries social stigma from decades of misunderstanding and criminalization. We cannot avoid that.
However, it's safe to say that twothirds of the American population supports the legalization of cannabis. And it's recognized for legitimate medicinal uses, not just recreational, medicinal uses. That includes pain management, PTSD, and
seizure control. I am pretty sure if not some in this room, we have family members or associates who are using this just to have a regular life. Our goal here is to not is to normalize safe
lawful access in a professional environment, not promote irresponsible use. I'm not an outsider to this town. I'm one of you. I intend to be a community partner
that will continue to invest locally and give back. I welcome ongoing dialogue with the residents, faith-based and civic leaders to ensure we align on the community priorities. It
is essential this variance does not conflict to the best of my knowledge with the spirit or intent of any zoning ordinance. This proposed location meets all the state and municipal requirements. I
think Mr. Leninski clearly outlined that and it does not increase public risk in any way, form or fashion the proposed use of this location for this business is compatible with existing commercial activities or retail
properties. And finally, I think this variance allows the board to apply reasonable discretion in adopting modern economic activity to zoning codes written before cannabis legalization,
which is not a deviation from community standards, but an evolution consistent with state law and economic trends. It's important to underscore that. Members of the board, I'm not asking you
for a favor. I'm not. I'm asking for a fair opportunity to operate a legal, regulated business that brings tangible benefits to this community. I understand that stigma and emotions
can cloud perception. We've seen it before. It's happening. But the facts are clear, right? Regulated dispensaries are safe. They bring jobs and revenues. They operate with transparency and
accountability. I'm ready to be that kind of responsible neighbor. And approving this variance sends a powerful message that this community values both economic inclusion and evidencebased decisionm
for over outdated fears. I thank you for your consideration and your commitment to thoughtful governance. Thank you. >> Any questions? >> Can I go back to Mr. Linski for a
question. >> Sure. >> All right. Um, being the expert uh in uh local, state, federal um regulations, laws, um can you at all speak to um maybe the rationalization for the
municipality limiting the licenses to number 18? >> Um I don't want to speak for the municipality, course, right? Um often times there are limitations. I'm just kind of drawing on experience across multiple
municipalities. Uh it can be anything from business perspective. Uh it can be oftentimes a ratio of people to number of locations. Um it's a it's a business that is not well understood. So I think
that is oftentimes one of the main reasons why there is a limit. Um because they're really a as New Jersey wrote it, it's intended to be just like any other business, right? We're not really limiting how many pizzeras are available, right? Um this
business pays extra taxes than most other businesses, right? There's a specific municipal tax on cannabis, um which I think the township does a great job in disclosing how much has been paid by all the operators. So I really
there is no set model as to why or why not a certain jurisdiction either at the state level or the local level limited perfect examples New Jersey, California at the state level there are no
limitations at how many dispensaries there can be period. Illinois there are limitations strict limitations. Rhode Island similarly, Florida similarly. The state promagates how many licensed operators can exist within the state
period. Sometimes the state like Florida for example removes and strips local municipalities from any shape or form of control of how many locations can be within their own jurisdiction. Sometimes
it really it really depends. So there must have been some re rationale behind why. Um perhaps they were worried about oversaturation. Um but you know really it it's I I think going back to what uh uh Mr. Bernett was
saying is that there there's often a misunderstanding as to how this type of business operates and the excessive amount of control within the business to ensure that is it safe and while at the same time accessible both from a medicinal standpoint and a recreational
standpoint. So I'm sure there was a spirited discussion by the members of the board as to why the limitation was put into place. Uh but really from just a pure regulatory standpoint um there really is no rhyme or reason and the state of New Jersey itself basically did
not put in a cap for that intent to normalize this business to allow to operate in any retail location but they also gave the local municipalities some power to make some of these decisions on their own. >> Thank you. >> I have a question. Um I think we heard
this time and also last time about the medicinal uses and the you know the uh public good for that. So do you have any data on what percentage of cannabis use
is for medicinal versus recreational? >> Okay, I'll take so sure. So look um the way I would say not the way all programs in this country have started are in the medicinal side. So you know tri-state area you look at New York
it always starts in the medicinal side to promote its use. Often times it starts on the most restrictive, you know, really serious medical conditions where doctors prescribe
cannabis when other things may not be working or just to help people with some of their ailments or some of their, you know, I don't want to get into the deep and heavier stuff, but all over time a lot of times those programs start including some of the things that uh Mr.
Bernett mentioned which is PTSD, chronic pain. So they start to open once more information becomes available to other types of conditions. Then at some point if the state decides either by referendum or what have you to move on to a recreational program, you start to
see a shift, right? Because your medical uses, there's going to be only so many people because they have to have a card. They have to get prescriptions for from doctors. So some people don't want to go that route because sometimes that's more expensive. you have to pay a doctor to see you. You have to pay a fee to the state for your card. So, they choose not to go the medical route. They just
choose to go just like buying anything else. They just walk into a dispensary. They purchase it for themselves. In terms of percentages, you know, the the state releases um sales usually wants to happen once the program matures. the medicinal side of purchases decreases
and the recreational side increases just because greater adoption, greater acception and again the cost to obtain a card and to stay medical the benefit is not really there for you because also on the medical side sometimes the products aren't available because there is also regulations around maybe what kind of
products be in the medical side and it varies stateto state. So you start to see a smaller percentage. But what this state is doing is they are trying to promote the medicinal programs. We are trying to create incentives and lower fees. I don't have the exact number for you. Um but while we continue, I could
probably look >> if I can just um if I could just add one statement to what um Ed shared. I mean the state has prioritized medical patients over recreational patients. It was the first program to roll out in the state. They rolled out
medical first and then recreational and operators. Also, if you're a recreational dispensary, you also have to give priority to your medical patients. There are some recreational dispensaries that open. There are specific hours where your medical clients can come in and get service
without interacting with the recreational clients. So, I think the state has also taken that into consideration and has asked us as operators to prioritize the medical clients. And if I could add on to that actually to even further that in the earlier phases of this program there
were certain operators the larger operators that started in the market where they did not meet those requirements by being opens because they were medical and recreation for medical patients for those hours. They didn't keep the hours they let in and recreational patients. They were fined by the state regulatory body that they
did not fulfill their obligations to medical patients. And if you were to stop in to the dispensary and spend an hour there, often times just being in so many dispensaries through the last almost eight years, you won't go for
very long when just somebody walks in, not a medical patient per se, walks in and talks about their medical condition, a condition of a family member, that they're there to buy it for them. Um it it's more much more common than the statistics will tell you because the
only things that the statistics will tell you is how many medical patients are registered and how much medical product was sold. And that is defined by a specific designation within state regulatory tracking systems that hey
this product here is designated as medical and it was purchased. It will never tell you how many people, regular day-to-day people are coming in and saying, "I can't sleep. It is impacting my life. It is impacting my family. What do you recommend? I have tremendous
joint pain. Nothing is helping me. What do you recommend?" These folks are not registered medical patients. They're not being sold official medical products because they just probably don't exist. And some of these dispensaries now actually you I can't you can't even get a medical license. All the dispensaries that are opening, the newer ones are
recreational only because the medical licenses are for the earlier rounds. So the numbers are very skewed and I would bet that they were probably three to five times just personal personal opinion, not fact, not record, higher than what actual numbers will tell you
because there's no way to register. >> Any other questions? >> Bring on your appointment. >> All right. Uh Mr. Kevin O'Brien. So, I did uh Oh, >> you can sit down first, Mr. O'Brien.
We're in for We're more informal here than other places. Raise your right hand, please. >> Mr. >> Testimony you're about to give truth, the whole truth, and nothing but truth to help you. God, >> I do. >> State your full name. Spell your last name for the record. give us your licenses, your education, by whom you
are employed. >> My name is Kevin O'Brien. I'm a licensed professional planner. I have got uh almost 40 years of experience in the field. Uh my license is still current. There are no adverse
actions against it. Mr. Chairman, if you like, I can go on, >> but uh it's up to you. >> Okay. He's accepted as an expert. Yeah. >> All right. Thank you. Thank you. Um, for the sake of the record, I do want to note I flipped to the next slide. Uh, to
keep with the, uh, marking, I think it would be appropriate to mark this as >> A2 >> A2C >> C. >> So, uh, this is the next page, folks. So, Mr. O'Brien, in light of uh the
additional testimony you heard tonight, what can you tell us about uh this site and how it's situated within Franklin Township? >> This site is in the R. Put your microphone up by your mouth there. >> Thank you very much, Mr. Shepherd.
>> Is this close enough? >> Yes, >> I can make it really. >> You don't need to be that close. >> Okay. >> This particular site is in the R residential district. All of the properties in red on the
slide in front of you, excuse me, are also in the R residential district. At the last hearing, we did discuss how these properties have been identified as commercial dating back to
1925. 1925 on the tax rolls and on township records as supplied by Mr. Healey. So these are commercial properties but
they are zoned residential and there's been no change to that in a 100 years. When given the opportunity to reszone these properties for whatever reason the township decided not to.
And yet all of these properties are non-conforming. So any business that goes in here, and over the many years I've represented a few of them here, have to come in here for a D1 use variance because they are
non-conforming in the zone. Excuse me. This particular property is non-conforming and it's got the bike shop and the deli that's been there forever and ever.
and before them the commercial uses at this site were there dating back to at least 1925. What this applicant is proposing is taking a portion of that bike shop and making it into a dispensary
and the bike shop will take less space as well as the basement and become just a repair shop. So this is an adaptive reuse of that space to another conforming use
that's legal in the state of New Jersey allowed by the township of Franklin and more specifically one of the 18 licenses allowed by the township that have been granted already. All this license needs is a home. And
you've heard the struggle to get a home. Not to mention the fact that the state of New Jersey and the United States of America are on different wavelengths. The United States of America banking system
labels cannabis a class one drug. It's not allowed. It's illegal. You can't take cannabis on a federally regulated airplane. You can't use cannabis in the federally regulated banking system. A
cannabis operator cannot take out a loan through a federally regulated bank. Excuse me. I brought my can. I forgot my water. So, this applicant has a specific and unique
hardship when it comes to the financial system. The state of New Jersey says, "Go, go, go." The township of Franklin says, "Go, go, go." And not only go, go, go, but you're one of our 18 guys. We want you to be here. You've gone through all of our
screenings. You've passed our muster. You specifically, Mr. Bernett, and you, Houndtown, the business, have passed our muster. But the United States of America
is not in sync with this because the federal banking laws do not allow anybody within the federal regulatory system to put money into cannabis. Mr. Bernett when he opens his store cannot take a
credit card because they're regulated by the federal government. He cannot access credit. This is going to be a cash business which is one reason why security is so
tight at these premises. So, all of these businesses in the red on the slide in front of you are pre-existing non-conforming uses in the residential zone. >> Yeah, but they're not they're not all
they're not all commercial uh businesses. You've got a a red space that includes Samson G. Smith school that includes the municipal building that includes a lot of things other than
commercial use. So it would be better if you describe them in a way that's a little different than that that actually matches with what's on the paper here. >> Thank you very much. So let's call them non-residential. >> That sounds great.
>> And they are still non-conforming. non-residential, non-conforming uses. And many of these uses in this area are commercial uses which are different from a school, different from a municipal building because those are seen as
beneficial uses for everybody and the fact that they're in a residential zone. Okay, I think everybody fairly goes along with that. But all these commercial uses again pre-exist the ordinance, pre-exist
the master plan. This area has been here for 100 years. And all this applicant wants to do is put another business in a place where another business is retreating from just like all the other cannabis businesses, just like all the other businesses here in Franklin
Township. This is an allowed use. It conforms to the township and to the state law. All we need is the D1 use variance to allow it to go here. We are further away than many other cannabis uses here in
the township from those sensitive areas such as a school. You've already seen the slide showing that other cannabis uses are closer to schools, closer to houses of worship.
This one is not. Not only that, but the township says it doesn't matter. The township has no regulations concerning placement of cannabis. The state of New Jersey has no
regulations concerning the placement of cannabis. In fact, it specifically exempts cannabis from the rules concerning other uses
and allows them everywhere. So, a lot of people at the local level and at the state level have said the use is allowed and the use is allowed here. There are no bars to it whatsoever.
at the local municipal and at the state level. If this were a trying to think of something that's not there, uh if this were a uh vitamin store,
this would still be a non-conforming use and still have to come to you. But if it was a vitamin store, would it be under the same scrutiny as a cannabis store or a dispensary? I think that my earlier testimony
is still in place and that found that this use was allowed by the D1 use varies. I'm sorry. Met the conditions of approval for D1 use fairies and that we met the threeprong
threepronged burden of proof. And come on computer help me out. And the three-pronged burden of proof is that we showed you in our last presentation that there were special reasons that were based in the
root causes of the municipal land use law. We showed you that this can be reconciled with the master plan and that it met many of the objectives of the master plan that it could be reconciled with the zoning ordinance
by the fact that this site is specifically suited for this use by virtue of it being a commercial use in a commercial area that's existed for over a hundred years. We've shown that the application meets the negative criteria
and that there's going to be no adverse impact on any of the surrounding properties or the township as a whole. This is an allowed use and I would conclude that this application can be granted without
substantial detriment to the public good and without substantial impairment to the zone plan and the zoning ordinance. Mr. Mr. Fluka, do you have any questions? >> I do not have any further questions for you, Mr. O'Brien. >> Mr. Chairman, >> no. Any questions? Um, I I have
um a question as it relates to uh some of the evidence that was presented tonight and in particular the um the fact that the applicant uh tried to locate uh this dispensary in some other
places but was told for a variety of reasons that uh they were not welcome there. And I I don't understand how that particular information is relevant to the D1 variance.
I I'll I'll field that question, Mr. Sheepard. So this information is being provided for to the board in direct response to comments from the board. So, while I might agree with you that under the strict statutory criteria listed at section
uh 40 colon 55D >> hyphen 70D1, I agree >> that's not that's not listed in there, but we well I should say my client as a member of this community is concerned with what his fellow members of the
community care about and are concerned about. So, we wanted to address those concerns specifically. That's why we presented this add additional evidence tonight. >> Okay. Good. >> And and if I may add, Mr. Shepard, >> uh in that slide where it says that due
to mortgage restrictions, that's referring to the federal banking system. >> Right. Oh, I get that. Yeah, that makes sense to me. Now I have um a question really that relates to the earlier application
uh earlier hearing that we had on the application and there was a picture of the um uh the building and how the this um business would look um in that
building. Can you call that up? >> I certainly can. No, that's not it. >> This one John painted that this afternoon. >> Yep. No, I'm particularly interested in a uh
the picture that I saw where they had a a sign for the uh business. >> So, the the sign uh that you're seeing, it simply says dispensary. >> Yeah. Yeah. That's um if you um go
around Franklin and places in general um they they use um typically these um dispensaries don't really just say dispensary. They use a a trade name um
to identify their business. Theos, for example, or Sparkology are two places down by me. And after I left the hearing and I thought about this, I I thought that it would be better if the sign said
um Houndtown or something other than just dispensary um on the uh on the building. >> If I can address this is simply for illustration purposes. This is not the official name of the business. Once uh
um approval is granted, if we're so lucky, the official name of the business will be on the awning. It will not be dispensary. >> And what will what will that name be? >> Um we're considering a name change as we speak. So Hound Town was used during the application process, but before go live,
we will be doing a name change. >> And in the event that any variance is needed for such a sign, obviously we would come back to this board for the sign. Yeah, I would be happier if I had some idea of what the name was going to be on the on the uh the uh the place.
I'm not particularly crazed out about this, but um uh I uh after I left, one of the things that disturbed me about and I voted in favor and one of the things that um disturbed me was that
just that dispensary sign, but I think that your client has some sensitivity to this issue and um if he uh if he means what he says, I'm sure he'll do a fine job and pick a name that's uh that's
going to be appropriate >> here. Here. >> Yeah. I don't think he he I don't think he's prepared to state what that name might be on the record now. But I will note uh the proposal uh that we included does um state that the sign would say dispensary. So if this board were to act
favorably and say it needs to say something other than dispensary, it needs to be a trade name. the we would obviously um have satisfied the approval for the the use, but we would be required to come back to have that sign approved. >> Okay. >> Okay.
>> That makes sense to me because I to piggyback on that I I agree that calling it calling it out as dispensary draws attention to it. So if they don't if someone going by doesn't necessarily
know what it is, it doesn't make them more inclined to go there. So I that makes sense to me. >> We're dealing with uh the stuff that you were talking about. Um but we're trying to do it in a in a a soft way.
>> Any other questions? >> No, I just want to speak in support of what he mentioned. You know, I also am pretty close to Theos and Sparkology. There's no dispensary in there. So,
>> it what it means is that there it doesn't say dispensary, >> right? >> And I I'll also note um and our uh cannabis industry consultant, I'm sure, can verify this. The the state obviously regulates the use very heavily. They also regulate the signage very heavily.
uh it there are strict requirements as to what uh logos, emblems and words can appear on the outside of these establishments. So it will not say dispensary. Uh you have that on the record. So if this board acts favorably that will not be the sign that appears
and whatever sign does appear will be subject to this board's approval. Actually, uh, we have another application for assigned variance for a dispensary that we're refusing. Not I think it's on the planning board level. The state
doesn't allow certain photographs of different state very much regulates the content of the sign aside from whether we want dispensary or not. So it'll have
to undergrow that approval aside from here. We'll be more interested in you know meet the size. >> Right. But I I understand the vice chairman and the other board members uh comments about the specific concern about calling out exactly what the use
is and we are receptive to that. >> No, >> and we'll meet the bulk variances. >> Any other questions? If you didn't know what >> that's it for your part. >> Yes, we I have no further testimony or exhibits to present. I would just request that after the public has an
opportunity uh to ask questions and make comments that I would be granted the opportunity to make a closing statement. >> This is the that opportunity. If there's anyone in the public wants to make a comment or ask a question, come to the mic, give us your name and address. If
it's it's going to be a comment, you'll have to be sworn in. I think he needs a mic. >> Okay, I'm sure you can. I'm Greg Stark. >> I live five road in Somerset, New Jersey. >> Can you spell your last name, sir, for the record? >> S T A R R two Rs.
>> Thank you. You know, although it's interesting, uh, he had trouble locating other locations or other locations that have dispensaries, you know, how close they are to schools or other sensitive varants. I don't think either of those
are even relevant to the question. The what's before the board here is whether you want to grant a variance right here in Middle Bush for this dispensary. Okay, that's that's an independent decision that needs to rise or fall on its own merits. Okay, not based on how
close something else is or how hard it is to locate another location. I think the key concern I have is Middlebush is a historic community. It is officially recognized as that. Okay. And as they mentioned, the businesses are here
already. We got a bicycle shop, you know, a deli, beauty supply, restaurant over here. These things have been here like for hundred years, okay, and fit very well within, you know, historic community. So, uh, to me, uh, if someone
was applying to say a Verizon phone shop, I would say, you know, that doesn't fit in with a middle bush, you know, recognized historic site. It just doesn't fit. And I I would urge him if
he wants to find, you know, a have a dispensary, that's his business wish, that he could locate another location that's not in a historic town like this, a recognized historic town. And you look at the other dispensaries that are around, they're not located in historic
towns like this. So, I think this is a big uh big change, and I don't think it really fits at all. So, I think that's really my major concern that uh any type of like business like that just doesn't
fit with historic uh community. So, that would be my my concern. I just wish he would, you know, take an opportunity. I'm sure if he looked around, he could find another site that's not right in the middle of Malbush that, you know, to open his shop. I'm sure you do a little
more looking around, you'll find a a great place, maybe even a better place in terms of, you know, customer access or better traffic flow or who knows what, but I just don't think it fits in historic town. Okay. So, that's that's my concern. Okay. Thank you.
>> Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? Yeah, my name is uh Tom Armstrong. I live at 127 Sunnyville Court um here in town. Um I got to know Mr. Bernett through um as a mentor through the men's mentoring men program which he chairs.
Um and I happen to also work in the industry. Um so we've become close friends and colleagues. um become, you know, have come fond of the work that he's doing and the work that he's done and he's been a big help to me. Um I would say I've been familiar with the
New Jersey industry and and speaking as to the historic nature. Um I think there's many towns that are historic in nature. Whether you look at Lambertville, Mount Holly, um there's many dispensaries that are operating in actually historic buildings um that are designated historic buildings. if you
look in other states as well. Um, and it's a it's a it's actually a pretty common use in a lot of historic jurisdictions as a you know boutique operation. Um, and uh yeah, I just um if you look at two of the other uh things
on site that actually that bike shop is actually struggling to survive, hence why it's no longer a full bike shop. It's just a bike repair. uh the bike shop, you know, unfortunately um due to the times, the nature um that bike shop uh the actual sales have shuttered and
it's just a repair shop now. Um I know Mr. Bernett, that was definitely something as he met uh the landlord, that was something that was kind of a happy marriage as the one business was subsiding. uh he offered to come in and and and you know take a place for this
uh other other business that had since uh um concluded. Um and yeah, like I said, I'm uh definitely in support of Mr. Bernett and the project. Um like I said, he's he's been a great uh friend and mentor to me and uh you know, I look forward to seeing his uh business come
to fruition. >> Thank you. Anybody else? Hi, my name is Valerie Northy and I live at 127 Sunny Veil Court and I was here at the last meeting as well. Um, I know there were some concerns that I know Mr.
Bernett did address earlier about safe consumption and I I know he also addressed the um the New Jersey Cannabis uh regulatory commission. So just to exemplify a little further, if anyone is interested to look, the New Jersey
Cannabis Regulatory Commission outlines safe and responsible consumption for use. They outline uh pregnancy issues. They outline a number of different issues which speaks to the need for us to be aware that they are in in alliance
with um the cannabis being um safe and responsible. I know one of the other comments early on too was that um one of the board members said he was on EMT and saw a number of overdoses um with
cannabis from cannabis dispensaries. Well, and no overdose, one overdose is one too many, but and I know that you have also seen many overdoses with heroin and you know and another other drug. So I would think that at least
here when a person purchases any kind of cannabis um materials or consumes anything, they have a responsibility to themselves to look at what they're purchasing and take some kind of responsibility so that they can
responsibly use and not harm themselves through that use. So that's all I'd like to add at this point. Thank you. >> Okay. Any other speakers? We'll close to the public then. Go ahead. >> All right. Uh thank you very much
chairman and board members for your time and your careful attention that you've given to this matter. Uh tonight you heard additional testimony addressing the very issues raised at the prior hearing, the proximity to other sensitive uses and the applicant's
efforts to identify other locations within Franklin Township where it could site this establishment. That testimony along with the exhibits presented strengthens an already compelling record. The applicant has shown good faith in
exploring alternative sites and for the reasons stated by Mr. Bernett, those sites were unavailable to the applicant. Through the testimony of Mr. Lanki. The applicant has demonstrated that other dispensaries in Franklin Township operate closer to schools, closer to
houses of worship than this site, and has proven that the subject property is uniquely suited for this proposed use. I'll also note that a board member at the previous hearing noted that there have not been any complaints about the other operating dispensaries uh within
Franklin Township in terms of any illegal sales or any disturbances uh cause caused by those operations. So presumably you have a responsible business owner here. Uh you wouldn't see any such complaints against this establishment.
You also have before you the testimony at the prior hearing which included the operational safeguards, the modest architectural adjustments, traffic compatibility, public support, and a professional planning analysis that established the variance satisfies both
the positive and negative criteria of NJSA 405D 70D1. The law governing this application is clear. The legislature of the state and the legislature that is the township
council have chosen not to impose any proximity restriction on cannabis retail dispensaries. For this board to impose such a restriction would substitute its own laws for existing laws. Something that a quasi
judicial body ought not do. We emphasize that this board's role is a quasi judicial body. It's not a legislative body. Your duty is to evaluate the facts and apply those facts to the existing laws, state statutes,
local ordinances, and controlling case law. To deny an application based on standards that are not found in the law would be unjust and unfair to this applicant. As I stated, neither the legislature nor the township council has enacted those proximity restrictions.
This is the CRE Act. These are the regulations that are promulgated pursuing to the CRE act. None of them contain these proximity restrictions. These are your local ordinances and they similarly do not contain those proximity
restrictions. I'll also note that there are five wards in Franklin Township. This is a proposal for a dispensary in the third ward. If approved, it would be the only dispensary in the third ward, which would avoid saturation of similar
uses in this area of the township or other areas of the township. This site is particularly suited for the proposed commercial use as it's been a this site has been a commercial use for over 100 years. So although it is a residential
zone, it's not really situated within a residential neighborhood per se. The board's duty is to evaluate the application under the facts and under the laws as they exist today. Under those laws and with the evidence pro presented, it compels the conclusion
that the requested variance can be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without any detriment to the zone scheme or zoning ordinance or master plan. So for all these reasons, on behalf of Houndtown
543 Incorporated, we respectfully urge that you grant the request for this variance. Thank you. >> Okay. Any board questions? Any comments? Uh maybe you got a motion first. >> What What does a motion look like here?
What do we do? Do we do we move to um uh withdraw the previous decision? There will be a motion to reconsider and approve the application as presented with all the conditions including the
one this evening and all the prior conditions and reg requirements set forth in the previous hearing. >> I'll second that motion. >> Mr. Shephard makes that motion. >> Right. >> Is there a second?
>> I second. >> M say a second. >> Is there a comment or a question? Anyone wants to make >> I'm I am calling the role. Miss Bethea, >> like you were ready. >> Are we voting? >> Unless anyone has any comments.
>> All right. Call the board, please. Yeah, Miss Paya, >> I am a yes because I believe they made the case. I believe this is a responsible applicant and so I am a yes. >> Mr. Bananic,
>> yes. Miss Curtis, >> um I'm still going to vote no because you know in spite of of the testimony that uh there are other u you know
cannabis dis dispensaries that are closed. uh you know we weren't asked to vote on that but for this one you know although I do appreciate all the you know extra effort put in I don't think in good conscience I can vote that there
won't be a detriment to public good so that it's still a no >> Mr. rich. >> Yes, they met made all their u they met the burdens of proof and I I have no reason not to not to say
yes. >> Mr. Rosenthal, >> I think the applicant has proven that he is extra asserted about the residence. So, I'm going to vote yes.
>> Mr. Shephard, >> I'm going to vote yes for the same reasons that uh uh Mrs. Bethea voted yes. >> Chairman Thomas, >> I'm going to vote yes also. And I know our attorney doesn't like to hear this,
but everybody has stated everything the justification for this that I agree with. All the rest. Mr. Bernett, congratulations. Uh we look forward to seeing you again. with your sign application and god knows
what else. Thank you very much. >> Is there a motion to close? >> I I move that we uh adjourn for this evening. >> A second. >> All in favor? >> I opposed. >> 910. Yes. >> Motion.