River Edge at the River Edge Library 685 Elm Avenue regular meeting 700 p.m. ask all to stand for a moment of Silent reflection for all the places in the world that are hot spots to pray for the civilians as well as the combatants as well as all who uh are affected by these um decisions of our world leaders ready salute I pledge Al to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all all right uh let's see um statement of compliance with the open public meeting act this meeting complies with the open public meeting act by notification on January 11 2024 of this location date and time to the town news and the record and by posting of the same on the municipal bulletin board and Borough website following notice of the say with the municipal clerk Madam clerk roll call here here here here here okay uh we're first going to open to the public on any item on the agenda but only the agenda we give two minutes to each person who may wish to make comments or ask a question could I have a motion and second to open to the public on comments on the agenda so move second all in favor please say I there is no one in the council chambers present with us now but we have looks like three people uh virtually if you'd like to make a comment or ask a question please raise your hand uh using the raised hand button uh and we will give you about uh I don't know 15 20 30 seconds see if anybody has something they wish to bring up does not look like no it doesn't seem look it give a moment more okay I have a motion and second to close the public on any item on the agenda some second all in favor please say I I okay there are monthly reports on file land use board January meeting uh the public is free to call the clerk and get a copy uh or come in and get a copy first reading ordinance um could I have a motion uh and a second for a first reading motion uh let's just do this somewhat organized uh by councilwoman caufman and second by councilwoman claudiana uh motion that the following ordinances be introduced and passed on the first reading in setting March 25th 20124 at 7 pm or as soon thereafter as the matter can be heard as the date and time and both the Rivage Library as the place and zoom as the virtual platform for the hearing of said ordinance ordinance 24-4 can I move them as a group uh yes you can but you have to still read them f okay and by the title in fact yes 2404 an ordinance to amend part two general legislation chapter 416 zoning of the revised General ordinance of the bur of River Edge to establish the Cannabis overlay Zone ordinance 24-5 an ordinance amending part two general legislation chapter 268 licensing of the revised General ordinance of the bur of of rge ordinance 24-6 and ordinance created part one administrative legislation chapter 92 taxation of the Cannabis establishments of the revised General ordinance of the burrow of River Edge could I have a motion a second so mooved second this is debatable uh but it is not open to the public is there debate at this point inquiry um I wanted to make a move to amend one of the ordinances slightly okay which is that I move to amend ordinance 244 um to include Sunday as well in the hours of operation our legal council realized that the county blue laws do not include cannabis and other towns and Bergen County very good could you tell me the section of that it might be uh we'll take a moment find that section e h it is section e subsection H page six of page six of e yes and it would change from Monday through Saturday uh to Sunday yes could I have a second to uh to amend this would be for 24- 0404 could I have a second second it's been moved in second it is open to debate is there debate hearing none I'm calling a question on the amendment and the amendment only all and because this is a change uh and because the Cannabis uh ordinance is an ordinance of some public interest uh though it does not require a a roll call vote I am going to call it as a roll call vot Madam clerk roll call yes yes Bon yesc B yes okay we are now back to the main motion which is to move as a first reading 24-4 24-5 24-6 with a uh setting March 25th of 2024 at 7M or soon thereafter to be heard as a second reading uh so having said that it has been moved and seconded it is open for debate is there debate I have a few questions and comments typos and stuff absolutely but one of significant I guess so I can just is it okay to just give my um mark up regarding typos to the attorney later well they they have to be discussed publicly and if they are non-substantive correct we can then uh we can continue with the motion um that's correct although at the time of introduction it's a simple matter just to amend it if there's something more serious involved okay very good uh Mr uh um glass councilman glass would you please give us um ordinance first uh page second and then reference to uh uh section by either number or letter yes ma'am thank you uh 244 okay everyone Let's uh turn to 244 go ahead P two correct go ahead third we ask go ahead I think uh second line it should be cannabis establishment establishments hold on uh that's very minor I would not even that okay very good so that one gets better it gets better all right so that one go ahead keep going page five uh just above the start of section E I believe that should be plant not plan uh just before E so at the endot D cannabis usable and it should be plant yes sir okay okay just what's your last name r p Mr rup okay um plan and plant that's is that uh a majored mine oh it's the it's it's the last one it's the roots of the plant plant yes uh no that's a minor one too very good uh councilman okay this be a little more substantive so onee right under that still on page five all other permitted uses located within the CZ shall follow the underlying zoning regulations should cannabis establishments also follow the zoning regulations the underlying zoning regulations I would think so since they're underlying um no I don't believe so and that's why this is an overlay zone so essentially what this paragraph does is is is establish the rules and regulations for the overlay Zone and this paragraph says any other use right is governed by the underlying zone so it's referring to our our normal uses the normal uses right so is that satisfy you yes so we'll strike that one as not not unnecessary my concern is that it's clear that the Cannabis establishment needs to follow also the ex existing ordinances affecting the underline and my recollection is there's another paragraph that actually says that so okay um and I don't know if it's in this particular ordinance or another one okay but I read through all three uh very carefully too and I I was pretty certain that it did it might be in 2406 but I'm not sure looking for something that says essentially accept as modified here in but if not we can add that well I don't think we can exempt them from the other um um no it's this is a conditional use so you've established certain conditions for this use where you haven't established a condition that varies the underlying Zone normally the underlying Zone governs yes so normally the type of clause that should be in here then is except is otherwise modified here in right right so can we add that we can add that and where would we add that I would add that as a letter r right what page on page seven page seven everyone and so we have just above section two letter r and that language would be except as modified here in cannabis establishments now same wording right that the Canon best establishment well here I would keep it plural because it's it's in general right but just want to make sure we apply the same exact Ro in here uh shall follow the underlying zoning regulations thank you all right because this is is substantive and not minor is there any objection from anyone on Council to this modification all right so we're still working with the modifications as a group instead of as a in peace meal councilman glass I'm may apologize I have a couple more no please do apologize this is what we're supposed to be doing top of page six uh paragraph 2 a all right so we're going back a page well we skipped to seven but I was on five so now oh yes you're right we skipped because we were adding language at that point so we're on page six uh and 2A go ahead so the last sense of that article all other classes of cannabis licenses not specifically permitted to operate in the C are strictly prohibited from operating anywhere in the burrow can we strike all other classes of cannabis licenses and just make it all classes of cannabis licenses I think that's what we want to say Mr R all classes of County not specifically permitted to operate in the coz are strictly prohibited from operating anywhere on the burrow well it's really anywhere else in the burrow right because it's they're permitted in the cause zone right not not specifically permitted to operate in the cause zone are strictly prohibited yeah I think elsewhere would be get better so so what if we do anywhere else and just put down then all strike other classes of okay we're uh we're on the second to last line uh we're at the last sentence we're striking after the sentence begins all other classes of cannabis licenses we're striking other classes of I thought we read all cannabis licenses not specifically permitted to operate in the cause are strictly prohibited from operating else anywhere else in the burrow thank you and we are adding the word else after the word anywhere in the last line in of course of the last sentence before the prepositional phrase in the Vero are we is there is there objection to that change hearing none we're still working as a group keep going um article I under conditions as well on the towards the bottom of that page I believe um right before the full colon that second main entrance should be deleted so it's not from main entrance the main entrances for example if you look at uh little I distance shall be measured in a straight line from the center of the entrance of the Cannabis establishment to the closest point of the closed property line well it's from main entrance of the Cannabis establishment to the main entrance of those other uses well it says to the closest point of SCH property well I think what they're really talking about is the distance what that might be a inconsistency then but I think that sentence means um that's an inconsistency because it really talks the distances they're talking about is main entrance to main entrance as opposed to property line I agree should it be the distance follows just see if there's any other uses here well then we would have to if we just say as follows the difficulty is is that paragraph I is limited to school property line and we're also doing this to um is Early Learning Centers daycare centers Residential Care Home oh I'm sorry I'm sorry I'm sorry you're right that's those are not school users so again if we just say as follows I think that will take care of it but isn't this language repetitive from state statute student regulations we're not creating the this these these standards the state has already created these standards correct well I can check I do have a copy of the state regs to verify well wait let's let's talk about time management is the correction that you've just suggested a simplified a simple correction that we could move on from yes essentially it's a what it's really accomplishing is instead of from uh the U Main entrance to main entrance it's main entrance to property line my goal is not to change the meaning just to make the meaning clear yes so um so what would we what would you be suggesting sir I think that what would suggested is that the last sentence of I large I capital I the distance shall be measured as follows right so we will be deleting from main entrance to main entrance and replacing it with as follows is that correct correct is there any objection on Council hearing none councilman GL thank you mayor almost done I apologize not yet please don't apologize you're page seven article J last sense I think it should be B no not b no right okay so uh this is space essentially there should be no should be a space between and the no is n not k o w for those who are listening online okay so there shall be space no cannabis display in the retail floor area correct all right is there any objection to that all right let's move on counil and glass he I'm gonna skip if it's okay absolutely to 246 let's move to 2406 it's a question um section 923 which is on page three of s actually no stop um uh we have uh we have amendments uh councilman please move your uh your your amendments just simply say so moved you move your amendments say so moved so move the Amendments have been moved is there a second to the Amendments second it has been moved and seconded we are now voting on the Amendments and the Amendments only to 24-4 all uh this is a cannabis this isn't important so we will do a roll call Madam clerk yes lar yes yes counc Mass yes Council MC glass do you have another ordinance that you would like to ask a question and make a correction to thank you mayor um 246 section 923 page I'm sorry page three of seven article B1 it's a question um I'm just wondering if this is a typo every medic cannabis dispensary should that be what do you think that should be count cannabis establishment every cannabis establishment has to find in our ordinance because we don't have a medicinal cannabis no but I think it's referring to the state uh State Statute and regulations for municipal Municipal cannabis dispensaries I don't know no it's it's Mr well it's actually this is not my this was not drafted by us this is drafted by special counsel but uh I believe that that reference probably should just be cannabis establishments since the purpose of this is to ensure that you have access to verifying the amount of the tax payment so Mr what are you recommending as a change um instead of every medicinal cannabis dispensary it would be every cannabis establishment okay so this would be um 92 D3 uh Item B one and the first sentence would be changed from every Municipal cannabis dispensary the beginning of the sentence the subject in sentence to every cannabis establishment all right any others for oh is is there any objection on Council all right uh councilman glass is there any uh other question for this particular ordinance no thank you mayor all right could I have a moot would you please uh uh I assume you want to make this uh this change a motion would you please uh make an a motion by saying so moveed so move can I have a second second we are now voting on the amendment to 24-6 correct everyone yes okay uh Madam clerk yes yes yes okay now we are back to the main motion which to is to uh move as a first reading ordinances 24-4 through 24-6 uh with a first reading setting March 25th 2024 at 7M or there sooner as the second reading um here at the riveridge library and on the zoom virtual platform could I have uh it's been moved and seconded already we are open for debate is there debate hearing none sorry I do have some questions on 2405 okay okay um I just want to I guess this is for the mayor and councel um so what page I'm sorry page two top um a uh starting kind with A3 so um we're going to PR rate if uh there's an application that's submitted after June 1 I'm not crazy about that uh just want to float that up and then the late fees um $100 shall be charged for Renewal licenses which are not paid honor before February 1 an additional 75 shall be charged for each month thereafter I'm wondering if we could consider increasing those better um so let's deal with them in order number three it is not unusual in our ordinances or in other towns ordinances please correct me Mr rup to uh prate uh firsttime application and a first-time application means uh does not mean uh if this particular one failed it means we uh had a business was established and then it closed and another business wished to get the license they would not be a first time this is simply because it's going in and they cannot get the benefit of a full year because we haven't passed any and there's no way they can do that so um I don't think that that's unreasonable actually I find it to be very reasonable but uh I I'll open it to the council for debate hearing no debate we're going to maintain um uh A3 as written and let's move to late fees what would you be what would consider an appropriate late Fe thank you mayor for asking that you know my understanding is this is going to be a $20 million a year or potentially $20 million a year business I think we're trying to incentivize on time payment uh you know with that in mind million considering that perspective I don't know that $75 a month is going to provide adequate incentive well so I'm S I would suggest $1,000 so uh late $1,000 and an additional uh ,000 for every um each month afterwards agreed is uh so that is what he's uh suggesting Mr R uh how would that stand if that was uh brought to court as uh uh could could that be challenged okay well first of all anybody with a filing fee can challenge anything so keep in mind it could always be challenged the real question is is within the regulatory scheme is this something which is deemed to be unreasonable um there's not a plethora of case law in fact there's no case law on this thus far so I know of no case I would specifically say that you can charge a late fee the question is what's reasonable uh keep in mind it doesn't go to the license fee itself because that license fee is still right um I guess the argument is what's the interest that one could get on a $115,000 annual license fee right because that's the benefit of delaying it all right so that is it seems to me the minimum measure right in other words let's do away with the incentive because obviously a dollar a dollar not paid on time is also punishment aspect right well punishment aspect is is a different animal okay keep in mind failure to comply can also result in revocation right so enforcement's a different issue this is really the late fee is really designed to offset the incentive of delay right now I'm not quite sure what interest rates will be um well I just did 15,000 divided by 12 months okay and then multiplied that by 0.02 which would be 2% so 2% it's $25 so 4% is $100 okay and maybe that's why the 100 was chosen thank you so do you withdraw the the um yes thank you m like to in um on page 4 26831 paragraph B when he was um referencing uh the ability of vocal license uh we're on page 45 correct right I don't see as the reason for Coss failure to pay licensing fee okay which which paragraph are we on I'm sorry so a I assume I I don't see it anywhere in 26831 revification of license causes I'm suggesting that failure to pay the licensing fee should be caused oh you're saying that we would add a six to make it an A6 are you saying that I'm not sure that that sounds good that's your question yes sir Mr um I believe that um let me just see if there was a violation of any provision of this article so that would include fairy to pay the fee okay does that satisfy yes thank you any other couple of typos again I can just hand them over no we we want to we want to this is not your normal ordinance okay um on page three of five article 26829 second sense the licy sh shall have the license in his possession at all times Mr uh that that's correct is there objection hearing none continue uh section 26830 paragraph 3 first sentence every cannabis establishment licensed to operate in the borrow shall be subject to inspection what does it say now by the word two is left okay correct so we added a shall and now we've added a to to different paragraphs is there objection no seeing none hearing none councilman glass thank you for your patience and in no your your detailed Orient oriented uh uh review is well appreciated and grateful would you um would you make the a motion uh uh are you making a motion to uh to the amendments so moved can I have a second second it has been moved in second it is open for debate is there debate on the amendment and this is an amendment to uh ordinance 24-5 correct and there is no debate roll call yes yes yes yes okay now we're back to the main motion yes we're good everybody yes okay we're back to the main motion motion it is open for debate is there any debate on moving ordinances 24-4 24-5 and 24-6 um as amended uh for first reading today and setting March 25th 2024 at 7 pm or soon thereafter uh is uh a date for the second hearing is there any U I'm sorry uh it's been moved in second is there any uh debate roll call counc yes yes counc yes counc yes all right well that was uh that was good that was very very good okay resolutions by consent is there any resolution that someone wishes to pull out for a a separate consideration before we move them okay could I have a motion uh from councilman um Benson and a second from councilman glass to move resolutions 24 4 -91 through 24- 97 some move second all those in uh favor please say I Council Council woman Kaufman as the finance chair would you please move 24-29 and would one member of the finance committee second it after she moves it resolution 2498 payment of bills at a regular meeting of the mayor and Council of the buau of River Edge County of Bergen state of New Jersey held on February 26th 2024 be resolved that the mayor and Council of the burough of River Edge approved the following expenditures current fund $456,500 40 General Capital fund $287 19226 Grant fund $4,049 3 trust other $343 120 payroll $2,147 66 unemployment trust1 8207 developers escrow $687 Self Insurance trust $5,495 Recreation trust $482.92 cents so moved second it's been moved and seconded uh all in favor please say I I okay uh so we had a request uh by Mr Omar right and no Mr Hassan he's not here no I'm sorry someone else someone else I apologize oh I I remember now yes I apologize um about a ramanan prent display and lighting we asked for uh a legal opinion uh Mr rup and has uh sent a confidential 14-page legal opinion to the council which I hope the council has a chance to review but he's going to summarize uh the findings of that great um we had researched the Constitutional issues as to whether the burrow of River Edge could authorize the display of a crescent and moon on Municipal property to celebrate ramadon briefly the First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides in pertinent part that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion for prohibiting the free exercise thereof the first amendment is made applicable to the states by the 14th Amendment um the um display of religious symbols on public property is a rather complex legal issue often times with conflicting cases all of which are dependent upon their particular fact patterns um based on my review of the applicable case law um unlike those cases where holiday displays uh which include religious symbols have been upheld the proposed display does not include any symbols from other religions as a recognition of diversity nor does it contain any other secular symbols denoting a recognized national holiday moreover the display does not carry a long-term history uh as um the test adopted by some other cases accordingly the display of the crescent and stall standing alone on Municipal property would not meet the Constitutional tests under existing case law and so what is your recommendation for us my recommendation is that um as proposed this um would appear to be violative of the First Amendment and therefore um that is something that uh the governing body should not entertain okay all right so uh having heard our legal opinion and given our history I assume that the council would not wish to move forward with this as it is currently been requested but it's up to the council is there any member of council who would like to make a motion to approve the Ramadan Crescent display and lighting hearing none the issue of fails um doesn't fail it it does it's not moved and therefore it is not open for Council approval or uh uh dismissal okay um we have new business and old business is there any new or old business that any member of council or Administration would like to bring to our attention having heard none we are now uh open to public comments could I have a motion to open to the public on any issue uh could I have a motion from any member of council second all in favor please say I I I all right uh yes come on up name and address sure Rock Bine uh T New Jersey and I think you had spoken to me previously about the concern for appropriate um um competition really um yes in the application process yes go ahead uh yeah I think the general concern is that uh because site control is requirement and there's limited opportunities um and even on uh ordinance I should stop you I want to help you yeah so what I want you to do is present to the council your concerns and then go into the details okay yeah um generally that since there's just limited locations and there's only one license and the ordinance itself restricts uh the number of applications to the limit of number of available licenses it really only allows one individual to apply especially since if you do any Outreach you're trying to set any meetings with landlords at this time they're not taking any meetings because uh they've kind of communicated that um the chance to lease is already is no longer available okay so if that's a concern and we're talking about an open judicious process that's allowing Fair competition and also gives River Edge the bargaining power to you know get the best deal for themselves that's under you know rules and regulations I'd hope that you guys would consider one striking uh Point B4 in ordinance uh 24-5 uh that limits the number of applications that you can rece received and two uh in the application process if there is site requirement I would ask that you would consider a multiphase approach that does one takes a look at the team the business plan uh the community impact plan or and verifies financial so that if that individual or team were to win it would give them the opport they have the financial means to operate and execute if they were able to win uh individuals who kind of pass that round as per the bar that you guys said internally are then able to wisight control and an opportunity to sign a letter intent with a landlord or something to that extent um I think this is just it allows more people to participate in the process um it makes it more Merit oriented versus whoever is able to already win site control before this process even started or it was announced or went to reading and limits other people from actually participating because I just doesn't doesn't really feel like it's an e process though you had sent me an email on this I didn't respond because it's really a public question okay and it's Council question yeah Mr uh rubert R I'm sorry um obviously site control is a key issue here right uh just having site control however does not in any way guarantee approval of the license by the governing body so uh quite frankly the governing body can't take into account other criteria as well as site control should an applicant then not be able to um be approved that would open up site control to other applicants as well that can then apply at that time um the difficulty given the limited number of licenses and the restricted location um uh doesn't uh allow for uh multiple applications um as it you know in those municipalities that do have additional licenses in multiple locations so there is an inherent limitation here but that limitation is is really not dictated so much by the governing body it's dictated by a landlord tenant relationship which is a private relationship right yeah I I I I completely understand that that makes sense um I think ultimately though if the decision is being made by the landlord then what's the point of an open application process um so I I understand the purpose of it um I think ultimately though if site control is inherent in the application process I think placement of it can also be included in a multiphase process where it doesn't make it the be the end all of everything um yeah I mean I think that's just my general perspective on it and okay hopefully you guys can take into consideration all right so that's a little bit more than two minutes but this was not a normal question and and required some some expert um explanation um so but I'm gonna I'm going to give you just 30 more seconds do you have anything else you you want to say um no I think that's generally it um you know I think there's a lot of people whove been applying or working this process for years in New Jersey and it's been very difficult so when these opportunities do come along they're very few and far in between and to get to the table to get in front of the council is very difficult so I I think that's why you know my team we arguing for a merit-based application process and as it stands right now it just doesn't feel that way but I understand the inherent limitation so I hope that you guys would expand uh how you might think about this so that you can optimize what you think might be in the best interest of River Edge in terms of the teams and what they have to offer for the community and the business itself and how they execute on their business plan okay thank you thank you all right is there uh yes we can see that Mr Singh I think it is I yes okay Mr Sing uh if you could State your full name and address and the council will recognize you sure thank Council full name is G sing um coming from 110 Regis and Paramus okay um yeah I just wanted to follow up and I apologize um Mr Roberts if if I'm paraphrasing inappropriately but sounds like you're saying that or through this process and reading the ordinance is again to that point where only one application once it is in then the application process shall be closed you the council is inherently selecting that one application who likely already and only has site control so to further the point here um I I I I believe the resolve could be to expand applications to allow an limited amount regardless of site control if site control is not a particular stomping ground for someone to be deemed a complete and appropriate applicant and license and potential lensey so why is the council allowing for only one application when you're trying to make this a justifiable Equitable process and bring the best mbased application forward okay um the the technical legal questions have been answered so we're not going to uh have a back and forth as I permitted last because we generally don't do that is there anything else you want to say before we um we close and then I'll ask Council if they wish to discuss it sure thing yeah sorry sorry to make it sound like a back and forth um not my intent at all I think the question or the point to to be had and and discussion to be had is why only one applic hint is able to close out the process to make this a democratic Equitable um process for everyone to apply regardless of site control okay and that's time and we appreciate that um and uh at when we close to the public uh if the council wishes to debate that or discuss that they shall is there any other member of the public would like to raise their hand and have two minutes I don't see any other hands raised let's just give it a moment sure but I have a motion in second to close to the public so second all in favor please say I I so uh it it has been suggested during the open public comments that we should consider um amending uh the idea of one applicant um and and certainly if the council wishes to do that they can but Mr R am I saying it right R Ru Mr Ru um uh we are just because an applicant comes to us if we reject that applicant then a new applicant can come to us that is correct look as a practical matter control of a site yeah is absolutely essential yeah so if you were to receive an application without a site it can't be approved right that's the problem so so it can't move forward it can't move forward and and that's that's the dilemma here because of the limited number of sites that are involved so if an applicant has made arrangements with a landlord or owns the land that's another possibility we do um um and has a site which is suitable under the ordinance um then they're meeting that criteria that doesn't guarantee them a license however no because the governing body has the right to reject that license on any other number of grounds and when Mr Lano was here um representing uh the ordinance if I remember correctly I asked him the question could we simply decline each and every applicant um without ever establishing a license and he said yes I believe is would you say that that would be essentially correct too we don't have any obligation to Grant a license just because the license is available um the answer to that is as a general matter yes okay subject to the overall rule of governing municipalities which is that mun bounties cannot act arbitrarily unreasonably or capriciously yes so if we found that somebody came forward and we found them to be wanting we could go to somebody else and we found them to be wanting and if there wasn't a third we had not failed in Our obligation that is correct okay does any member of council wish to debate the question of one license all right seeing none uh is there a council comments okay uh could I have a motion to adjourn so move second all in favor please say I I well done everyone great job especially councilman glass thank you so much really appreciate that and Mr rup thank you very much and um okay we're good everyone