The Hoboken City Council debated allowing certain dispensaries to incorporate manufacturing, restricting intoxicating hemp sales, and changing the composition of the cannabis review board (CRB) during yesterday’s caucus meeting.
By Daniel Ulloa/Hudson County View
The ordinance, which was withdrawn before the May 20th council meeting, would limit intoxicating hemp sales to the New Jersey Cannabis Regulatory Commission (CRC) and “city-licensed authorized cannabis businesses.”
Council President Ruben Ramos also noted they do not want to allow cannabis consumption lounges.
Community Development and Planning Director Christopher Brown explained they’re still working on the ordinance’s details.
“I’m waiting on an updated version from the CRB attorney [Rosemarie Moyeno Matos],” he began.
” … I was hoping it would be up today, I know she’s still working on consolidating the two and hopefully by tomorrow morning, we should have a consumption area free ordinance on the website. Consumption will not be in the ordinance.”
1st Ward Councilman Paul Presinzano was unhappy about the prospect of allowing cannabis manufacturing, while 2nd Ward Councilwoman Tiffanie Fisher was concerned with the language of the ordinance online.
“That’s just out of the blue and all the fees are up massively, too, so I’m kinda clueless here,” Presinzano declared.
Brown reiterated that the version of the ordinance on the city website was just a placeholder for the time being.
“ … It looks like we’re inserting an impact fee that wasn’t there before? At first, I thought the impact fee was the transfer tax and then I went down and realized we’re still collecting the two percent transfer tax fee, but this is contemplating an additional one percent? impact fee every year, so a total of three percent, right?” Fisher also questioned.
She later added that anywhere where 10-day notice is required, she would prefer it be 20 days so that residents had more time to understand what was happening, also noting that another proposal was to have the CRB reduced from seven members to five.
“I think if we have five, it would still be great to have two of the resident ones be appointed by the city council and one by the mayor. Right now it’s flipped,” Fisher asserted, also, like Presinzano, questioning how cannabis manufacturing would work.
“ … The thing about manufacturing is it’s a different type of use versus retail, right? It’s gonna have more, I’m assuming, more delivery trucks because they’re delivering out. It has more implications to road use and delivery and loading zones, and delivery, and so, when I think about the conditions of approval for manufacturing … what are those conditions?”
5th Ward Councilman Phil Cohen responded they were only considering “very light manufacturing,” with licensees in the industrial zone being used as an informal pilot to test out the idea.
As Ramos sought to close the meeting, Presinzano remained a bit perplexed about what the city was considering doing regarding hemp.
“ … Is this gonna be for every single institution, not just one or two: This is for everybody in town that sells hemp, like all the little bodegas and things like that, is that correct?” Presinzano asked.
“Yup,” Ramos said, to which Brown added they’re specifically addressing intoxicating hemp.
“Okay, and the state given us clarification on the beverages, because I notice we have a temporary carveout in there,” Presinzano continued.
“That’s a question for the CRB attorney, I think we’re getting the ordinance in line with the state, but that’s a question for our CRB attorney,” Brown replied.
Ramos said that is questions remained unanswered by the time tomorrow’s 7 p.m. meeting starts, they would carry the measure a second time.
