0:00The meeting commenced with an in-depth examination of cannabis micro licenses, a topic that has garnered substantial interest from both the council and the community. Council members discussed a proposed regulatory framework that would require cannabis business owners to be local residents, with a stipulation that over 50% of proprietors live in Tenafly or nearby municipalities. Employees would also need to reside within the same zone. The framework suggested a limit of 1,000 cannabis cells per month. This local-centric approach aimed to prioritize smaller, locally-owned businesses over large retail establishments, mitigating potential negative impacts on the community.

Council members expressed differing views on the economic benefits and community appetite for cannabis sales. While some were skeptical about the projected revenue, others highlighted the ongoing issue of a thriving black market. The council acknowledged the experiences of neighboring towns such as Fort Lee and Rell Park, where cannabis establishments reportedly operated without major issues. However, concerns about underage access and the potential societal impact of cannabis retail persisted.

In the wake of these discussions, the council considered the next steps for drafting an ordinance on cannabis micro licenses. A proposal was made to form a committee to collaborate with the borough’s administration in developing a draft ordinance. Zoning regulations were emphasized to prevent cannabis businesses from being located near schools or places of worship, effectively limiting their presence in many areas, especially the downtown zone.

Following the cannabis discourse, the council shifted focus to short-term rental properties, particularly Airbnb. The regulation of rentals lasting 30 days or less was a contentious topic, reflecting growing concerns from residents. A draft regulation was introduced, with council members contemplating feedback on the rental duration, potentially reducing it to seven or fourteen days. Discussions also covered the definition of permitted uses, including whether families, nannies, and household help would be encompassed, highlighting a need for clearer guidelines.

Enforcement of these regulations emerged as a issue, especially the adequacy of a $1,000 penalty for violations. Questions arose about whether this penalty would deter homeowners from engaging in short-term rentals, as some might incorporate the fine into their rental pricing. The council acknowledged that enforcement would largely depend on resident reports, given that police and building departments might not be aware of infractions without notification.

17:41The meeting also featured public comments, notably from resident Richard Fonte and his fiancée Christina Scolaro, who shared their experience living near a frequently rented Airbnb property. Fonte described the transient nature of guests and associated security concerns, citing out-of-state vehicles and parking issues in the cul-de-sac as significant disturbances. He urged the council to reconsider the continuation of such rentals, emphasizing the distress it caused to him and his fiancée.

In response to these concerns, the council discussed the proposed ordinance’s next steps. There was a consensus to proceed with the first reading at the next meeting, allowing for further public commentary. Potential regulations on advertising through platforms like Airbnb and VRBO were also considered, acknowledging that state regulations might preempt local laws for rentals exceeding 30 days.

On a different note, the council deliberated on an environmental initiative regarding the reduction of plastic utensil distribution by local restaurants. A proposed ordinance would require restaurants to provide plastic utensils only upon customer request. Some local restaurants, like the Tenafly Diner, already practiced a similar approach. Discussions on enforcement included proposed fines, with a maximum of $2,000, sparking debate about the consistency with penalties for Airbnb violations.

Moving forward, the council addressed infrastructure and scheduling concerns. Discussion included adjusting the timing of budget hearings to avoid conflicts with community observances, such as the start of Ramadan.

34:02Additional discussions covered the Little League field project, particularly the use of artificial turf for the infield. The council explored funding options, including potential contributions from the Little League community, though there was debate about the fairness of asking residents to contribute through both taxes and fundraising efforts.