Al I aliance 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 [Music] all all right this planning board meeting is being held on December 7 2023 at 7 o'clock pm statement of adequate notice under the Sunshine Law adequate notice in accordance with the open public meeting Act was provided on January 11 2023 of this meeting's date time and location the agenda was mailed to the cranber press in Trenton Times posted on the township Bolton board mail to those requesting personal notice and filed within Miss Anderson here Mr milenberg here Miss Bond here Mr Stewart here and Mr Whitman here thank you have a quum chair first item on the agenda is the approval of the meeting minutes from November 2nd are there any questions comments I have a com or Corrections on page four five the second and third paragraph both start with the same sentence or idea and both paragraphs are quite repetitive uh indicating that chairman whitmann uh proposed eliminating the RO Zone and then says the same thing twice so uh I just suggest language so strike the entire second I think that would work okay they are two different sum the same any other Corrections or comments I think this was the one where we clarify ified that we weren't finding that those papers were permeable was that am I remembering correctly I was just wondering is that something that we should have on the record it's in the memo in the memo and I'm talking about the minutes it's on P two right no I just meant um should we have on the record that we we were not making a finding that those pavers were permeable I I thought well it's in the resolution if it's in the resolution I'm fine okay yeah um it's um did you do say that you didn't that you didn't want them to set a precedent for other developments right and then it's in the um let's see there was a comment in the resolution about it I'm just trying to see where it was yeah it's number three board members expressed their agreement that the grass papers had not worked well in this instance a proposed solution would improve the Aesthetics serve the same purpose although it was agreed that applicant's proposal was satisfactory given the relatively small area effect in the site um board did not want to set a precedent for other developments that have might have more square footage to cover so is that suffice then it doesn't need to be in the minutes it just needs I think it's it's it's basically in the minutes because where it says Mr Gidding stated he didn't want the proposed paper to set a precedent and um so just hear me I'm fine I just was wondering about like the permeability that we weren't making a finding that those were permeable but I think I'm I'm satisfied with what's here right I think what I said in the resolution too because um it was stated kind of stated by the board that it's the joints that made it permeable and that's what it says in the resolution so any other comments Corrections none okay um can I have a motion on the amended minutes I'll move the amended minutes amending removing the third paragraph from page four any second a second there we go okay wasn't president so the two jasons and Miss B are not eligible to vote for the minutes okay I'll second take your second back all right there we go you want do all in favor you want me to go down go down the r okay roll call Miss Anderson um Miss albadawi yes Mr fante yes Mr Giddings oh I'm sorry my apologies Miss Jones yes and Mr Whitman yes thank you motion passed so next item on the agenda is a consistent re consistency review oh I'm sorry I'm skipping down I'm so excited on this cannabis thing here um I love that we now have officially on the record all right for for all those elig all right let's uh first start off with respect to the resolution we have re re resolution PB 34621 for J our research which we we just talked about in our meeting minutes um are there any comments Corrections or anything we need to go over yes just one consistency comment it states on page two four uh under a factual findings item one that it's 10 to 15 feet times 20 feet or 200 to 250 square feet uh that calculates to 200 or to 300 square feet 20 times 15 we got that verbatim from the applicant maybe their calculations are you probably throw an approximate in there approximately we did have approximately I take back my multiplication okay that's that's all I picked up on yeah you are correct we got have somebody here that knows math um so do we need to correct that in the resolution okay all right all right we're splitting hairs now okay we're splitting hairs so all right but good point thank you um and the other comments or questions on this resolution okay hearing none let's take a roll call for those who are eligible to vote so only Dominique and Bill were eligible so how would we do a second I think someone can still make a motion in a second she just has to be the one who votes okay okay so I'm gonna make a motion to approve resolution PB 34621 I'll make a motion or you made it I'll I made the motion you second okay roll call Dominique yes all right motion passed I wish it was only just I wish it was always that easy now moving right along too bad they weren't all that easy two people we don't everybody else can go home right um so next item on the agenda is a consistency re consistency review cranbery Township ordinance 11-23-19 and 50-10 Rec recreational Cannabis of the code of the township of cranberry and replacing it with a new article three section 50 medical and recreational Cannabis activity of the township of cranbery code and amending code 50-55 1 15-5 thank you so with that being said I know there's um there may be some there most likely be some questions or comments from different board members but um Mr Mayor what I would like to do is I want to hear I'd like to hear from Liz and Sharon and then I I I would let you you you have some comments already prepared and I'd like to hear from you know should we do that would that be all right with you okay well let let the mayor give his comments then or a brief summary of this so so um basically and I read this at the first Township committee meeting when this was introduced this revised ordinance it provides a lot more detail if you look at what it was replacing it's replacing two tiny paragraphs and the revised ordinance provides more detail around the classes and definitions of cannabis it reaffirms our ban on retail recreational Cannabis it actually does it five times within the border of our town and allows for pre-existing cannabis manufacturers located within our town to cultivate for the Cannabis Market the ordinance also provides a revenue source for our Township by setting licensing fees and indicating State permitted Revenue sharing percentages from sales and transfers from Cannabis activities that's essentially what this does so just a couple yeah a couple clarifying questions so the the revenue would only be for grandfathered existing operations the only uh companies that would be eligible for this would be pre-existing alternative treatment centers already located within the the boundaries of cranber do we happen to know what happens are they sellable can they be acquired I mean so it's it's completely restrictive it can't transfer location or company so it's it's it's very it's It Was Written in a way that's very restrictive about the site and the company um and it's and and it seemed to also carve out a uh medical exemption for there there was a carve out somewhere in here hold on on the page I think it's page 10 where starting with b subject to J coning compassion on medical use cannabis act it would be allowed under certain circumstances is that just which which item is that uh 10 10 it's on page 10 and it's Item B exemptions okay yeah so that is the pro those are the classes that would be Exempted for those pre-existing alternative treatment centers which is one so just so that I understand right now you have a um a uh facility that um grows and processes the um medical cannabis right right so what this is doing is creating a carve out for that particular facility right and and they they are operating um under an alternate um Treatment Center so you have an alternate treatment um Center permit uh you can then um pretty easily uh transfer that into a license for recreational and that's what this is allowing this to happen so they can convert that license that they have for medical into recreational and then this this um now whether they'll be doing both you know I don't know but I I that's what I'm understanding here but it's not being allowed in any other place except this one they have two facilities so they have one facility in one location and they're currently building a second facility but it's the same company and so the the ordinance reads well to say it's a pre-existing per that specific company okay is it on a different piece of property somewhere it yeah and just for context one is like you know typic classic warehouse It's a closed building roof on all four sides they the second facility is a bespoke facility um that has basically Greenhouse roofs it's completely air contained but it allows it's way more energy efficient because it allows for to take advantage of all the natural light but then supplemented by Led so it's a um it's a much more environmentally friendly fac growing process so so it's one license holder basically it's one license holder okay so just to add on what you said uh because I haven't been part of any of the township debate on why it was prohibitive or not prohibited in the first place but what we're saying is beyond the control or the purview of this they can go to the state and even though the original exemption was for a um compassionate medical use they can start being a distributor for um recreational use as well um yeah in order to do that you have to show that zoning permits that in your town you have to show that there's an approval and of support from the municipality too in order to get your state license and is there anything we should do in here to specifically pre set the stage for not supporting that or is that already impli all you're being asked to do here is a uh report to the governing body as to whether or not you find this consistent or inconsistent with the master plann so I mean you could say that it's not inconsistent but they're just asking you for a report and you can add something you know if you want to add like we don't want any other facilities or something but really they're just looking at this ordinance sure I'm asking in that context though I don't know Mike if it came up in the township version of the discussion that they can convert to recreational and you're okay with that again I'm agnostic to the issue I honestly don't particularly know why we couldn't allow it in general but I but if we're making a carve out specifically for for medical use I'm just curious why we would you know allow recreational for this pre-existing company but for no one else okay so under the I'm I'm giving you more information from the municipal attorney I just want to interrupt you one second so maybe from your background you can explain to the board what we are here for tonight to do this we just here say okay our our function as a planning board is just to say whether this ordinance is cons you know inconsistent with their master plan or not and um so sure I've done that like 10 times over the last 14 years so so just so you know from a zoning perspective under recreational recreational medical Mar cannabis are different so under the Crea act which is um speaks to recreational recreational Cannabis a municipality can limit it up to one place in the town they can they could prohibit it Al together or they could uh zone for it anywhere or limited to one it's one of these laws that allows you to make a limit you know and so that's what it sounds like the committee is doing here are we zoned for just one I think that's what they're doing right now you know they're is that what we're doing right now yeah Mr May that's what it sounds like we're doing we're we're doing what's on page 17 so we're we're um we're basically limiting saying it's prohibited in all zones of municipalities except the ones that are that are defined in the ordinance that is being approved so we're limit we're limiting it to the the scope of the ordinance this is page 16 uh third section B this is and that is the this is the section that is the um the land use section which is the part on 16 A and B I'm using the one that was put on the desk it's the uh it's it starts with section at the top and then it says 1 15-5 prohibited uses and there's a sub a and a subb do you have that yeah so we're we're basically reaffirming the prohibition except for the ones Exempted in the in the proceeding PES Liz would you like to provide us some guidance on your viewpoint on this as far as the consistency of this well you can look at it a couple ways I I I know so one one way to look at it is that the master plan actually doesn't mention the master plan reexamination which is in 2019 or nor the full-blown master planen in 2010 makes any mention of cannabis because in 2010 it wasn't it was not in the Horizon um however the location of this facility is in um the industrial Light Impact Zone it's sort of in if for anybody who may not know it's sort of in the far Southeast corner of the township um you know to the east of not only Route 130 but also the turnpike over here that no it's no it's actually it gets stickier than that so it's in the I zone no is that is that yeah yeah you can mark the exhibit oh yeah I'm sorry I'm a little slow tonight yes exhibit A1 and and so the couple things that the town the master plans have said is that the areas east of Route 130 and certainly east of the charm Pike are where you are going to be able to generate your Economic Development you know that and that is where all the warehousing is that's where the Light Industry is and so there is and I think my understanding and I'm probably gonna be misp speaking but I think that this never even got had to get a use variance the medical marijuana I think it was sort of almost fell under um Light Industry you know so that it's it's sort of I think at the time the zoning officer who was the zoning officer at the time felt it was consistent with the underlying zoning um so there's that I think is one thing to keep in mind the other thing to perhaps keep in mind is that this enables back up just a second because what did you what did you say that your your what was your thinking that the recreational was lumped in with the medical or the approval on the site the approval on the site in 2018 or 2014 or whenever yeah 2017 was well I think they actually got their approvals from the state in 2014 they did so they yeah so that came from uh sag the agricultural who said this is agriculture and it can be on preserved Farmland right which which is we're gonna get yeah that's that's the second half of what I was gonna say which is that um another goal or objective of the master plan is to uh preserve as much Farmland as possible and contiguous Farmland as possible uh and so this is a carveout of a much larger preserved farm and um as as uh Evelyn alluded to the state Agricultural Development Committee has acknowledged that um cannabis and growing cannabis is agriculture and so in a sense you know as as part of a preserved Farm you're um allowing a preserved Farm to still function as as a farm um and this is not pertinent really to our discussion tonight with regard to consistency but there are right to farm laws and protections of farmers in cranber that are on preserved Farms if you are a on a preserved Farm growing cannabis you don't have that protection so um but I think with regard to the m the master plan consistency the thing and I know you you've done this 10 times or whatever you said but it's a double negative it's not inconsistent so um I think if you if you look at it as you know bringing up those sections of the master plan you could find that this facility and this ordinance allowing there to be recreational can growing which is uh you know a type of Agriculture according to the state then that is not inconsistent with some of the provisions in the master plan you could also say the master plan didn't mention cannabis I mean you know it's up yeah I just checked up a couple of cases just in case it would help you um because if you have a master plan and you and you're looking at an ordinance and you see some cons inconsistencies but some consistencies as long as it's substantially consistent with the land use plan then it's still okay I mean just because it's not perfect you know but as long as it's um uh doesn't substantially um undermine or materially undermine or distort the basic provisions and objectives of your master plan it would still could still be found to be consistent or you can I've seen the wording say we've you know a report to the governing body say we've found it to not be inconsistent they've actually used double negatives before so I mean you do it that way too I'm going to throw it a couple qu I I was going to hopefully hear from anybody else but you brought up two things that I had questions on one um there's only two form there's only two properties that that I know of or two blocks of properties in the industrial Zone that are preserved as Farmland this property and the one up the street on the um more up toward the Route 13 area there's a farm there that's preserved also but all of these properties are in the II zone so essentially it's in it's in their industrial Zone if this wasn't on a piece of preserved property in other words it was just an II piece of property would be would this be consistent then similar to the other spot in town where it was it's being grown in a warehouse I think that the zoning officer at the time actually did have that line of thinking that this was a permitted use in the zone so regardless of whether the property was preserved or not preserved or anything it was it was it was consistent with the zoning of that zone I believe so I that's my understanding okay and secondly you brought up the right to farming law yes I read that in it's very it's very clear that where is it that Farms Federal Federal doesn't approve cannabis therefore well that's if they get if they get eligible for Right to Farm if they if there's no right to farm period um whether wherever they got their funding from so there's no right to farm so does that mean that they're Bound by other other laws for yeah for basically an indust for Industrial Area Sharon and I and Sharon I will let Sharon speak in a second but we've talked about this a few times this week because it's our interpretation that then the underlying zoning kicks in because just so in case people are not aware when you have Right to Farm protections basically that means that you can a farmer can build whatever agricultural buildings they want if it's necessary for their operations right I could run my irrigation pump next to your house all night long and you can't stop me or or I could I could be or I could right or I could go out and shoot deer at three o'clock in the morning who eating my crops so that's all part of the right to farm right and or they're not going to be able to do any of that they will not be able to do any of that the other thing is and because when it I read the minutes a few of us read the minutes for when they went before the state everything that they grow is actually indoors for you know probably a number of reasons security being probably number one but um so but I think what I was bringing that up is I know there were concerns that the green houses seem to run um whatever what's the right word in opposite sorry counter yeah thank you it run counter to this idea why we preserve farms in the first place which is not just because we love agriculture but also because of the scenes the scen of use and so that was another thing that Sharon and I spent a little bit of time do you want to talk well um unfortunately the Farmland uh committee for the state you know has does not feel the same way that municipalities do with respect to impervious coverage of green houses and such I um uh I a long time ago back in 2000 I argued this in front of a county a board because uh the town that I was representing was when Farms were going into Farmland preservation they were concerned with uh buildings too many buildings being um erected on Farm properties because of the bonds the state question that went to the voters was to preserve farms and everybody was basically thinking of Rolling Hills and and crops and so uh that town requested a second uh restriction for f for 5% to try to limit the the buildings and uh we were told what what what that town did just by way of background that kind that town kind of pre-purchased easements and then went back and got um County and state funding after the purchase um and the you know the farming programs allowed us to do that but they wanted us to um release all those easements because they said that was restricting farming you know and I had a big fight with the county and the state and and um I said I don't think that's what the voters approved when they came when this question came before them and then after that there was a a case Den Hollander uh and Franklin Township I know that quite yeah and that guy covered his entire property with green houses and it had nothing to do with cannabis it was indoor plants um ornamental plants boms and such and long long uh fought case and basically uh the town was stating that you know these greenh houses were permanent we're uh in violation of all our zoning ordinances and the uh the Court said that and these issues are are subject to the sadc's interpretation and that's where they have to be decided so town you don't get to you know dictate uh how many buildings are on properties after that the sa was that was that appealed or was it a lower it went to the appell division and then the state sadc got involved in another case after that called Quaker Valley Farms and I don't have the site but they've actually recognized that that is a problem and now they've got uh soil uh disturbance regulations that are being proposed at the state level um they have not gone through yet but they are setting limits the proposal is to set limits um on Farm preserved property so that um you can you would have a limit if it's on the preserved area I think it's 12% or four acres of building and but that doesn't account include the exception area so for example on this piece of property you've got the proposed the the preserved area but then there's the exception area and there's buildings within the exception area so that would be plus you know 12 acres plus but there is a limit that's being proposed and there are some exceptions that you would be able to get you know to those rules but that hasn't gotten into effect yet um the last date that I heard that public comment was being accepted on that was um October 6th so think it's you know gone into effect yet but the state is definitely concerned with this issue so just to clarify and we're starting to get off topic here because a lot of that wasn't specific but I'm glad to hear about the state working on it is there any other limit on the structure because my worry wouldn't be cannabis it wouldn't be green houses it would be the new trend that's starting to occur everywhere where people take full Warehouse looking buildings and start building industrial scale aquaponic facilities for indoor crops so could we suddenly see Ware barring them making the change could we suddenly be see huge warehouses on all of our preserved Farm Lots you you could you know you could that would not be good no um the only thing I could say is that um farm buildings are still supposed to be subject to um storm water management you know other state regulation so to the extent that they impact what you can build on peace property I mean there's still supposed to be you know compliant with those as well so so if we were to if we were to pass say that this is consistent and we're allowing buildings to be constructed on our Open Spaces um could another person come along and say well you've done this you've allowed buildings on your open spaces and uh we think you've set a precedent here well to be fair what's they're already building this facility so this building is almost done it was done it's being built to produce to cultivate medicinal cannabis the only change that will happen out of this it there will be no change of of anything structurally with the building or anything the only thing that will change out of this is fewer trucks are going to be coming out of the back of this Warehouse of this building than would be otherwise because this gives them fle supply chain flexibility I guess just what I'm concerned about is not so much when they did it but if we're saying it's consistent to erect structures on open space with our master plan or am we're not I mean the thing is when those green houses had to get State approval it wasn't done doesn't come from the township so they had the state agricultural committee had to say that's okay and I'm not necessarily saying about the approval but more the the fact that we're finding its consistent but this this ordinance has nothing to do with buildings but the state uh um approved haris as an agricultural um crop right the unintended consequence or the side effect of that is that they need um greenh houses structures in order to uh produce so that was kind of a side uh effect this was all done 2017 before our master plan in 2019 before we did our reexamination of the master plan so if you read the master plan there are I want to say 8 10 uh sightings where it talks about open space uh scate Corridor overlay which was initiated in 2010 which our Township committee passed in 2020 to say that we have a preference uh for our Scenic corridors you have to be 400 feet back you can't put lighting there's a lot you can can't do like along cranberry Neck Road or along these open Vistas so the master plan does in in several places say that we want to as a town kind of commit to that overarching um open space this was approved prior to the passing of the Senate Corridor overlay so I think had we had this conversation in 2017 we would say it is consistent but I feel like having the conversation now it is not consistent with the master plan because it puts a structure even though it's it's all legal it doesn't matter if it's basil poin setas whatever it's putting a structure where a an open Vista was and cannabis is the one is one crop that cannot exist any other way so to me passing this ordinance would not be consistent with the master plan the way it is now there's nothing wrong with it it's a good ordinance I've read it a couple of times it's consistent um and it does do what we um it does kind of follow our um conversation when we opted out of the ordinance we knew they were moving forward but from a planning board standpoint what what is within our perview um can we um find it inconsistent based on our 2019 master plan and and it can still pass it will still go through and they'll still have the one license with all the caveats that go with that but I think as a planning board we need to be conscientious of what our priorities are for open Vistas and open space can I just just say just so it's clear you could find this inconsistent and buildings could still go up and preserve Farm land because it's has nothing to do with cannabis and so even if this were not to pass it could still happen I I realized that but I just feel I was trying to address your question or what your comment was because they're like separate and apart they don't need our approval correct because of the right to farm and and well the town can still pass the ordinance regardless all they have to do is adopt your resolutions acknowledging the fact that the board found it inconsistent and then they give their own reasons the committee as to why they would still feel at this they want to pass the ordinance that's what we right but yeah I'm G I'm going to debate which Evelyn but what you're talking about with the revision was basically for preserve land correct like Farmland preserved land or oil Land in the township for for the preserving Scenic Vistas and everything are you talking about allall land in the township or just preser res erve land in the township I'm talking about upholding our Senate quarter overlay right but is that for the industrial Zone also I don't think it matters I mean the the point I was going to make is to that speaks to you you were saying well one of the two facilities that they're using happens to be in conflict with the scenic Corridor that facility already mostly exists this consistency isn't asking us to weigh in on whether that facility is consistent or inconsistent with the master plan only whether allowing cannabis on that facility is consistent or inconsistent so I don't think we're in any way impacting the stuff you said even if it happens to be three steps removed that the thing that is going to benefit from this is inconsistent because that's not at all part of what we're being asked to approve here did that did you follow that you don't look like you followed that anyone else get what I was saying yes the the bottom I'll try to say it's simpler nothing about what we're being asked to approve or not approve has anything to do with the scate corridor we're not being asked to approve that location we're not being asked to approve that business it does because it because it requires a structure yeah but the structure no it doesn't actually I don't think anything we're saying here has anything to do with where a structure happens to go you're saying you happen to know that the facility that would benefit from this happens to have a structure that is in Conflict but that's not what we're being what I'm saying is in this particular crop so we're only this is a an ordinance for a very specific one crop whether it's medical or which could be on a facility that doesn't violate any of those ordinances no matter what facility it's on there it will be enclosed it will be in a but our existing ordinance allows for enclosure you listed an example 400 feet back Etc there's Farmland with enclosures all over our in industrial or our preserved Farmland Zone they just they're not 400 feet and various other things that are in your but it doesn't mean they have no structures so I'm not clear how I think it's a matter of scale really and also looking at the master plan and the fact that the master plan can continues to articulate that you know we uh want to preserve our open spaces so this doesn't preserve our open space it it's a weak argument but it's consist it wouldn't be completely consistent with the master plan because it does not um because the fact that it must have a structure wait but just to further clarify it happens to be that they're using a Preserve Farm line space for one of these two locations but there's nothing that would have prevented the exception being on a location that wasn't even preserved Farmland right so this really isn't again getting at preserved Farmland they could have gone to a warehouse and so totally unrelated to preser farm put it there in fact if you had never um done anything about the Cannabis ordinance the the law says that recreational Cannabis would then be automatically permitted in an industrial and retail zones so it really wasn't meant to be on Farmland you know the the recreational right so but in this case I'm bringing it up Evelyn because it's not a given that approving this is inconsistent because it's not a given that it would impact preserved Farmland except that this is a very specific to this it's one license for one business and we have the specifics of the business business that's my only disconnect here but that goes back to the ship has sailed they already have that structure so us approving the what we're approving has nothing to do with an impact on Farmland that's a separate thing that occurred it already it already it occurred before any changes I I understand that I get that but this ordinance is specific to one uh grower and we know the um parameters of the grower I mean look it's not going to make a difference but I think that as a planning board we you know need to focus on what's important to us we have a you know we have a few things that we go throughout our master plan that we try and preserve uh and so my only point was whether it is poetas or whatever having a structure on open Farmland on preserved Farmland was probably not our intent when we uh paid to preserve it right but we could we couldn't we couldn't prevent that now no matter what we said uh it's not my point to prevent it it's my point to ask the question whether or not it is consistent or inconsistent with what our plan is then our plan is inconsistent then our plan is inconsistent because we can't if if somebody out in the a100 zone meeting all the setbacks wants to put in 20 acres of green houses on a 200 Acre Farm we couldn't do a DD to stop them right now nothing right but it would not be our preference it wouldn't be our preference but it wouldn't be inconsistent with what they can do right now no matter how many Vistas it would be inconsistent with our master plan and the wishes of our master plan but wishes and that's our question today is consistent or not but wishes versus what they can do are two different things what they can do that's not the question Wayne the question is whether or not it's consistent with the plan and the the basis of the plan but we have to be cons consistent with the laws of the state of New Jersey so if we're going to propose something that's inconsistent with the laws of the state of New Jersey then we're not consistent it's not Inc consistent with the laws of state of New Jersey it's consistent with our metop Point that's all it's just more about a structure whether they're poetas or or basil right but on preserve Farmland this is specific to that but a farmer can go in right now and put buildings on their Farm absolutely that's not my point my point is what does the master plan say and what are we as a town focusing on because the master plan is not ordinance specific it is uh specific about how we want holistically the town to look ENT it's about intent right it's we we intend for that to be a Vista and if it were redeveloped we still wouldn't want a new building there we wouldn't want a building there if somebody was allowed to build a building there it's just you know through the master plan we appli an intent to have a Vista and you're saying that the building is inconsistent with that intent that's all but but to your point the master plan isn't specific to a particular you know owner property I mean there's nothing in this ordinance that we're being asked to review that even mentions the the company or the location it refers to the pre-existing yeah there's only maybe not in words but in in it's in effect it is a license for a person right right because it says pre-existing right I read that pre-existing right so there's only one pre-existing company it's in two places we already have the advantage of knowing what it is that starts to sound like spot zoning to me it's like you're starting to say what you want to do talking about zoning I'm talking about the master plan intent that's all and from the planning board perspective what is our intent we don't always get uh we don't always get what we want but what's the intent in the historic district things happen the intent is to preserve the historic Integrity sometimes it doesn't happen but that's the general intent of the town I'm not against the ordinance the ordinance is Well written it's fine but this ordinance per the township is specific to one applicant which is what we are hopeful for because we wouldn't want these license to go to three or four or five applicants the town's been very diligent in saying this is a pre-existing and this ordinance is specifically for that applicant which is already building do do you does that make any sense oh I understand what you're saying I just I don't think we're going to come to being on the same point of view I'm very Happ do with it by the way I would love for them not to have built here but I don't see how it was fine we we didn't have so so but it feels like what you're saying is retroactively now that you're getting a bite at the Apple on asking whether this is consistent or inconsistent you're going to not look at the Spirit of what they're looking at which is whether having cannabis is consistent with our zoning or not or you're going to instead say well because you happen to know that the one person who benefits happens to already have a that you believe is inconsistent with something from a rule you passed after they have that you're going to say that it's now inconsistent so that's that's a lot of what I did not say so I didn't say that what I said was this ordinance is for a pre-existing applicant we know the conditions of the applicant and those conditions the conditions of cannabis no matter where it's grown for medical or for um recreational must be contained in a um in a a structure so with this this does is not consistent with the master plan but that structure doesn't have to be in a in a preserved Farmland Zone but it is but that's when you get back to where you're retroactively focusing on one particular business that was set up before that point that's what I'm saying I just don't think we're going to get on the same side of that and I think that's okay okay but I understand what you're saying I just don't think it is in the purview of what we're being asked to say is consistent or inconsistent you feel differently and that's okay I think if it was transferable let's say the license was transferable even that we're granting one license to there's only one person in all of cranberry who am I correct there's only one person in all of cranberry who would fall under this one and and it's non-transferable so it can't go to anyone else so I think we would kind of be turning a blind eye to the facts if we said oh you know it we can't say that it's on a preserved F land because it go to any anywhere else but it really can't because it's specifically for one person and it's non-transferable if it was transferable it could go to someone else and they could sell it to someone else and that other person could be you know somewhere else that's not preserved land but the way it's structured to me is that it really can and that's a nice part about it is that it can only be for this one person right um so I kind of feel like we would kind of not kind of be putting our heads in the sand if we say it's not this person we have to imagine it could be anyone because it doesn't work that way it's pretty tight can um can I go back to Sharon what you said are we the only town in the state of New Jersey that you said that is facing this or just did I hear you wrong six aren there yeah there oh I don't think I said anything about Which towns maybe I Mis maybe I misheard you they said you this is the only one maybe maybe it's the only one for cranberry is that what is that what you referred I thought was the only one for cranberry okay all right I I I just wanted to make sure we weren't the only one in the entire State I I from what I understand um the sadc was taking the position that growing cannabis you know back in 2011 was a a crop you know and uh that's where so apparently a bunch of other farms in burlingtonon County I know that for sure had approval to grow um Medical on preserve Farms back then so you're not the only one where this this happened I think there are six okay yeah with regards to the single license um now the single license two sites is there any prohibition to a third site for this single license there is okay I think in the in there it said currently you know this it was restricted on almost every possible angle ownership yeah but could he can could he expand on that site like could he potentially build even more green houses on that site I think based on what he got approved though he was at the right they were at the right Ratio or the maximum ratio but it's because it was there was a certain amount of on the plot of land they had to they could only develop a certain amount of the plot yeah of what they have already built that does I think is your question could they build more and I I'm not sure the answer to that question to be honest what they Sharon uh alluded to it or said it before that um when that you preserve a farm you have like exception areas and usually it's like where the farm houses or it's just you know that area and um so most of the green houses are actually in that exception area the ones that exist uh so I think that's what you're talking about but I don't know about future green houses when you when you say exceptionary it's when when you go ahead and you take your Farmland you put it into the uh the system that kind of like open space except you accept out a portion of that now deed land that says this is only Farmland but the exception is the part that is not only Farmland right and so um most of the time I think it's residential uses right so that in this case I think it was like two acres or something like that I can't I can't remember but it would you know it was a couple acres that didn't have to just be committed to agricultural uses but they did um to put the the green houses there my understanding is my understanding is in the um exception area that's the area that's not subject to the easement and is ALS subject to whatever your zone is there you know so the underlying zoning not to digress here one second um but you bring we brought up an entry point you said Sharon again correct me if I'm wrong that the the board the County Board is now looking at how how building on preserved Farmland is of the State Board and they're in this process should we have been making comments supporting that from the township of cranbery since you know like 40% of our land is in Farmland preservation should we have had thrown our two cents in there from a from a planning board or Township wide anybody I mean you can if you in your report back to the committee you could you know find this not to be inconsistent but you could say by the way we support you know limits on preserve Farms um and and we preserve we support what the state is doing to you know uh limit impervious coverage of these buildings you could say that and um you gave your opinion on it you know another thing I was just thinking option for another and so maybe that's something that goes in the master plan which is if if there's going to be this type of fac I like the words intent and prefer so would everybody like that in our report back to the township committee it's going to be a long report no solar Farms limit the uh amount of f on a property you know yeah back back in the day with this the same thing it just was totally out of place well I mean once you um put in something like that you've permanently Disturbed the underlying soils for farming you that that's it you know you've taken the uh ability to farm anything it's very hard to restore land after that you put concrete down the bottom you know you're limiting what it can be used for at that point did he really yeah so he's probably sold it to somewhere else most likely yeah to me I think there are two different things both should happen I mean I'm personally in favor of the township doing whatever it possibly can to support limits on structures like this and other things like autronic warehouses and so forth I think it's worth spending money on I think all that to me that has I would I would keep that distinct from our comment specific to this whether this ordinance is consistent or not just curious how does our how does our Vista ordinance play into any of this how does our what it's an excellent question that I've been thinking that I've been thinking about all meeting because we have a scate court our ordinance which preserves you know you can't build within a certain um whatever 400 feet of a and it would somebody come to us and say well you know what I have right to farm protections and so that doesn't apply to me I don't know if they have a farm and they do have Right to Farm protection if they're I think they're going to um trump our ordinance what is right right to farm State and we're local is that the issue right to State y going back to that exception though I thought if they accepted the land out of The Preserve that it was subject to local zon right but usually that's not I'm just picturing where your Scenic ordinance is it's probably what along the edge of the road you know exception are is probably plopped in the middle of the property going around the residence or barns or something like that so yeah yeah okay where do we go from here does anybody have any other questions or comments or debates I just have a quick and this this is like probably going into the weeds too much or maybe I just don't know enough yet so when somebody um wants to start farming on preserved land if they wanted to build Barns and structures and all kinds of stuff do they go to the zoning board for variances to put that in or because I think that goes to what you were saying a little bit earlier about are we setting a precedent by not saying it's here we go not inconsistent you know what I mean like so I just I just don't understand when somebody comes and they're going to make they're going to use our preserve farmland and they have to build structures is there a limit to the accepted exception zone or all they need to do is if it's for Farm purposes it's an agricultural building they just need to go to the construction code office and get local permits that permits for that okay and comply with whatever requirements are we can be dissatisfied with it every time pardon me I said we can be dissatisfied every time it happens and let we don't really like it but you what what can you do I mean you don't have to take it sit down well you can continue to debate that and someone can make a motion about what how they um feel about whether they feel it's inconsistent or not you know consistent or not inconsistent and a second and then uh formulate a report back to the governing body and I don't know if that would be for Robin to repair yep it could be simple or you know it could be just one paragraph This is my first consistency hearing and I guess I'm G to ask some pretty basic questions what are the factors we're supposed to consider when we determine this like what are the parameters what are we supposed to look at not look at consider not consider to be honest I think everything that was said tonight is is relevant so you know I think what um Evelyn comments about protecting Scenic corridors is relevant I mean I I I take um your point that this ordinance isn't necessarily on point to that but um I think there there's that issue I think there's the issue of preserving farmland and and and view a Vistas is an important part of the master plan and I think but also I think economic development on the east side of the CH Pike is also a factor so um I think you can take it all in you have your master plan and you know you I know Evelyn looked through it and took out portions of it that she felt was relevant you know or not so but on both sides I said you know we said east of 130 uh we were going to have smaller uh light industrial and it suits that so it suits the zoning so it's not inconsistent with respect to that point the open Vista the Vista ordinance the scenic Corridor overlay which happened after this came into play um is a repetitive theme in the master plan but even though it's uh on a preserved Farm it's actually in the industrial late zone so we there there are homes across the street okay but in that zone what can you do in that Z anyway you know can you put Farmland you could grow corn or or you can get a bunch of buildings that are uh um you know greenh houses that look a heck of a lot like a warehouse in the industrial zone so is it inconsistent really you know I mean the township would like to preserve The Preserve Farms but the fact also is is that you know I'm looking at your definition of agriculture which is the same for everybody else in the state's definition for agriculture you start reading it start thinking about what this means production storage harvesting grading packaging processing boarding wholesale retail marketing of crops well you can put buildings on to do that stuff you know it's not just it's not just planning a field you know so um again getting back to the to the facility itself there'll be no other licenses granted for any other cannabis growing facilities here in in cranberry and is this given one license or four license this is four classes four classes does each class require a fee or are the four classes so these will be four I know the state is going to look at this on the 13th of December but will there be each of those classes will have the benefit of being renewed each year that's correct um and each one comes at A T tone like a liquor license at $50,000 a grant it is it's the def six classes for cannabis just for background were modeled off of the alcohol license guidelines so the six classes are basically the same classes as alcohol and the for the Cannabis Market there are almost ridiculous distinctions because there there's cultivation and there's manufacturing there two different classes those There's no distinction between those there's no such thing as a wholesale for cannabis either so these so the distributor basically these four licenses allows them to grow it and ship it out the back of their building so it it those four classes are sort of compressed into really one one capabilities and then the the fifth and sixth class the retailing is banned that's the having a storefront and then the delivery service is actually running a service that delivers it to people's doors that is the distinct sixth class so the guidance has been that the these four classes are really blurred and that they're really all part of the end to end of a facility like this you can't have one without you can't have one without any of the other they're they're absurd so they're kind of a bundle um and they're treated as a bundle yeah hope that helps um to move this forward can I take a poll of the board to see how they feel before making a motion one way or another okay starting with you Jay so let's go we're going to go around the room this way so you're first and again it's your opinion whether you feel it's consistent or not it's a very general document for very specific licy one just one and you got 10 16 pages to outline what that one person can do and how does it apply it's in place and do I feel it's uh inconsistent with the zoning or uh with the master plan I'd have to say it's not inconsistent with that not inconsistent I've already said all the rest so I don't need to say it again okay yeah your opinion I guess I'd say it's not inconsistent the location sorry um because of the location of it and the the Zoning for that area I'd be more concerned on the west side of 130 but so I guess it's not inconsistent yes you don't have to hold it by Monique um I'm conflicted I I I really don't like the idea of saying you know buildings going up on preserved land is consistent with our ma master plan I know our hands are tied as far as we can't prevent it if it's agricultural um I do appreciate that made this ordinance pretty tight to only apply to one party um and the fact that it is in a zoning area a zoned area for you know the light industrial so I guess I guess um it's one those cases where I hate to say it's hate to find it's not inconsistent but I do think my hands are tied a little bit eelyn I'm not sure what she answered she said not not inconsistent but not happy about it reluctant not inconsistent and listening to my peers and hearing what our professionals have to say I I would have to find it also not inconsistent Mike or Mr Mayor I'm also going to concur it's not inconsistent and myself not inconsistent thank you okay um that being said we need to craft a motion that would kind of C ify this in a way that not only I I I would like to codify something where our report back to the township committee would state that we don't find this particular situation inconsistent but we would like the town and if the planning board need be to make sure that the state has our support for reducing anything you know with every coverage in the future I think we should really put our two cents into you know um the state on that because um you know I've seen too many farms where you know it's all solar panels now and and um or like the greenhouse scenario so if there's a way that we can craft that and and kill two birds at one stone I'd like to do that we can do that I don't know the the reason I suggested two stones and I'm 100% for doing it to be clear is it feels to me like at least the point I was making is that this doesn't have anything to do directly with preserve Farmland right if you link them as one stone you're kind of doing that so I don't see the downside of us saying this is not inconsistent and separately saying we would like to we would like to have the township look at and consider and invest in doing this as two separate things because the second point is way broader than this this either this ordinance or this location so two motions two separate motions to one would like to do is that is that what I'm hearing that that's what it sounds like I mean it sounds like it sounds like that second idea we maybe want to flesh that out a little bit maybe there's a working committee that could put together some guidelines for some sort of a a guidance or working document that it sounds like there was a lot of threads that were pulled tonight about things that we'd like to make sure sort of get codified I don't I don't think we can craft tonight all the things that we think should be in that but but maybe that could be a goal for next year is we have a little subcommittee that in the you know by the end of first quarter this planning board you know drafts a guidance to the township committee that says in light of you know three years after our last master plan in light of changing things we'd like to think think about these six or eight factors as guidance for future development seems like that would be okay let's keep them let's keep the apples and oranges separate then but but be aware of the the second I think the second is a huge issue oh absolutely like as soon as I heard it before the discussion came on my brain yeah no no it is I just don't I want to make sure that we get our two cents in and and and Liz and Sharon if you could kind of find out what's going on at the state with this and get back to us you know somewhere along the line doesn't have to be an exhaust thing but just kind of see where they are in the process of this so we're not quite off guard with this and um you know because you know that's the last thing you oh we're passing these laws and like whoa wait a minute time out we didn't even get our two cents in or or get to scream and yell like everybody else so uh we have to make sure of that okay let's focus on this particular item for this so we need to I'd like to have a motion to uh um approve the ordinance as as just just find that it's inconsistent with your master plan that's really all you need to say What She [Laughter] Said So moved Evelyn you're welcome to be a dissenting vote you don't have to concur I realize that okay you just don't look like you want to that's fine can I have a second please I'm happy to Second it okay so this roll call will be for finding the ordinance presented not inconsistent with the master plan if you do say yes or yay okay Miss Anderson yes oops Miss elwi yes Mr fonte yes Miss Jones yes Mr milenberg yes Miss span yes Mr Stewart yes and Mr whis yes okay thank you motion passed pass and just to confirm I'm just reporting back to the TC that this is found not inconsistent and that is it correct no comments you stated you wanted to put through okay thank you right can I can I point out a little typo on page 11 under the classes ordinance it's really tiny just Pro but you probably want it to correct it um under the right before the Jake honing compassionate use medical cannabis act in each class you should probably say two yeah okay next item on the agenda is discussion does anybody have any items for disc discussion I want to congratulate Wayne Whitman who just became a grandfather thank you thank you last week first one so thank you very much little boy Jake Tyler so um the other item uh two items for discussion first I want to thank the board for uh letting me be your chair this year I am not going to seek reelection as chair in the beginning of the year I'm planning on staying on the planning board but we'll we'll I'm just letting everybody know now that you know if somebody wants to be the chair they'll they'll you know get your ducks in a row and then we'll come in for the reorganization meeting on January the 11th so it'll be that evening so it won't be the fourth no the 11th will be our reorganization meeting thank you for stepping in with Mr Kaiser yes resigned a few times yeah no it's been it's been just seamless thank you very much you're welcome and and my comment overall with everybody on the board here and um I just want to say that I know from a political standpoint we're probably all over the map on our on maybe where we feel politically but when everybody comes in this room I have seen 100% cooperation in how we approach looking at cranberry and doing the best thing for cranberry so everybody Parks their politics at the door and they focus on what we need to do for cranber and I find that very refreshing and you don't see that in too many too many groups where you know people make it very political but this board has been very consistent through my time period here that everybody focuses on what they need to do and they worry about the town and what we do and how it affects the town so I really want to congratulate everybody on that because we we we there's been a lot of good effort in in making that all happen here so thank you next item public comments opening up to the public for any comments seeing nobody here closing the public comment section uh I'd like to have a motion to adjourn so moved second all right all is in favor I there we go thank you everybody