After engineering office finds it is consistent with master plan
SOMERS POINT — Permission for cannabis businesses to operate in Somers Point has been delayed, possibly indefinitely, following a ruling Aug. 16.
The Somers Point Planning Board voted 5-2 against the ordinance being consistent with the master plan, a necessary step in the process.
City Council President Janice Johnston said she had not received any formal information from the Planning Board and would have to wait for that to comment.
“Obviously we have to see what the Planning Board said. It will not be on agenda for this week,” she said.
City Council voted 5-2 on July 27 to introduce ordinance 19-2023, which would allow for a cannabis retailer and distributor to open in the city and designates where they could operate and other details.
The main motivator for allowing the businesses is that Somers Point would be able to collect a 2 percent tax on retail sales and 1 percent tax on distribution sales.
Calling it “probably the most important vote I will ever make, from the past and into the future,” Councilman Howard Dill joined Councilman Sean McGuigan in voting against the ordinance.
Dill, who sits on the Planning Board, long has questioned the revenue projections — about $400,000 annually based on an economist’s study — and whether the state would continue providing the tax or keep it for its own budget as has been done with the gross receipts tax and others.
Planning Board solicitor Joel Fleishman explained that the board’s duty was to determine whether the ordinance is consistent with the city’s master plan, last updated in 2015.
John Helbig, representing the board engineer’s office, delivered a report finding the ordinance is consistent.
“The current ordinance involves two disparate elements involving a comprehensive municipal licensing and vetting process, generally consistent with guidelines provided by the state Cannabis Regulatory Commission, and amendments to development regulations,” Helbig said. “These two elements attempt to provide a regulatory structure directing the general location and operating criteria for a retail dispensary and/or distribution facility within the city.”
He said the proposed uses would be designated conditional uses in zoning districts that allow retail and various other types of commercial operations.
Conditional uses require compliance with all stipulated conditions in order to be approved and receive a conditional use permit from the Planning Board. If one or more conditions cannot be met, an application would be referred to the Zoning Board for a conditional use variance.
“While the city’s master plan is compiled to guide broad development patterns as a basis for the zoning ordinance, it does not generally stipulate the need or prohibition of specific commercial enterprises. Instead it generally refers to businesses as a class, such as retail, business services, professional office, marine commercial, etc,” Helbig said.
He listed four elements of the proposal that are consistent with the 2015 master plan re-examination report:
— Under goals and objectives, the plan recommends a retention of an adequate mix of land uses to provide a range of services for the city and region. (The economic development element of the plan emphasizes in significant detail the primacy of the city’s commercial sector as regional providers of goods and services.
— Regional retail uses should be directed to areas having convenient access to the state highway network.
— New development/redevelopment along the Route 9 commercial corridor should be encouraged by incorporating new design standards to insure aesthetically pleasing development.
— The plan’s Land Use Element evaluates each of the primary commercial districts GB, HC-1 and HC-2, and while suggesting the need for new, aesthetic design standards and evaluating the potential for mixed use developments in the HC-1 and HC-2 Districts, the plan recommends retaining retail as well as a diverse mix of other commercial uses as primary uses in each of these zones.
Helbig said the ordinance lays out area where cannabis businesses would be permitted. Areas include:
— Route 9 from the ShopRite Plaza to Chapman Boulevard, Groveland Avenue to Pennsylvania Avenue and south of Somers Point-Mays Landing Road on the west side.
— MacArthur Boulevard from Braddock Drive to the intersection of Shore Road and Somers Point-Mays Landing Road.
— Somers Point-Mays Landing Road west of Route 9 on the northbound side.
Mayor Jack Glasser asked for a definitive answer. “Flat out, it this consistent with our master plan?”
“I would say that it is,” Helbig said, noting “changes in policy at the state and federal level sometimes necessitate changes at the municipal level.”
He said the master plan must be flexible, noting personal use cannabis sales were not even envisioned when the plan was last updated, something that must be done every 10 years.
Board does not agree
The board disagreed with Helbig’s assessment after lengthy discussion about traffic and parking.
Fleishman said the board can make recommendations on changes to the ordinance but they would not be binding.
Dill asked if the board could require parking and traffic standards.
Fleishman said if an applicant met all of the conditional uses, the board can impose reasonable requirements but could not deny it.
“My concern is that we have heard a lot of information about revenue from members of City Council. If this meets the revenues that people are talking about, we are going to be talking about high traffic volume, we are going to be talking about large parking area requirements and things of that nature,” Dill said.
He said even if a dispensary would bring in half of the projected revenue, $200,000, it would require $10 million worth of sales annually. He said if half of that were online or delivery sales, the shop still would have to do $27,397 in sales every day. He said based on the expected average sale of $100, the shop would have to service 27 customers per operating hour.
“My concern is how we advise the council that they have to take into consideration these types of projections, these types of numbers. We need to give the Planning Board a chance to come back and put restrictions based on some type of projected revenue so we can look at it in a plausible manner,” Dill said.
He said while restaurant parking requirements are based on seats, requirements for a cannabis retail shop would be based on existing standards of one spot per 200 square feet.
“We need a concrete projection of revenue and amount of traffic consistent with that type of revenue and to make sure we have the proper traffic study and sufficient parking to handle those types of numbers at the facility,” Dill said.
Fleishman said the board could recommend a study of those issues be done if the board found the ordinance consistent.
“Our responsibility is to look at this and say, ‘OK, if this does move forward, here are the concerns we have that should be addressed,”
Board Chairman Paul Striefsky said.
Fleishman noted the board has only 35 days to respond with a referral. Failing to do so would allow City Council to move forward without a recommendation.
Dill said he wants the section of Route 9 from Groveland to Pennsylvania avenues removed from consideration.
“I’m worried about a bottleneck on Route 9 if we put a cannabis business with that type of volume on Route 9,” he said.
Michael Sweeney said the same is true of MacArthur Boulevard.
“A business like this is going to generate people who travel from other places other than Somers Point. We are surrounded by resort island towns. MacArthur Boulevard is absolutely no treat in the summer, and now you are going to add that to it?”
Dill said he believes the areas of the city south of the Laurel Drive intersection with Route 9 down to Somers Point-Mays Landing Road and all of Somers Point-Mays Landing Road are proper areas for this type of enterprise.
“It would be more than adequate for this type of retail sales,” he said.
Board’s decision
Fleishman told the board that if it found the ordinance inconsistent, it must state the reasons why.
“Let’s not confuse defects in the ordinance with consistency. We have a professional opinion of the board planner that it is consistent,” he said. “That doesn’t mean it’s not subject to recommendations.”
Striefsky said too many issues remain unaddressed.
“In reviewing both the report Mr. Helbig gave and public input, I think that there is enough holes in the ordinance that it doesn’t meet the criteria to be in any way consistent with the master plan,” he said.
Sweeney voted no, saying there are too many inconsistencies requiring studies of traffic, parking and safety.
“I think that it is not really feasible for Route 9,” he said.
Dill stated four reasons for voting no, saying things are missing in the ordinance that need to be addressed.
— Each location must have two points of access;
— Traffic impact study must be conducted;
— Parking impact study based on projected volume not standard zoning code must be conducted; and
— Elimination of area on Route 9 between Groveland and Pennsylvania avenues.
Jack Shields voted no, citing the same reasons.
Max Slusher voted yes.
“I don’t think that the master plan says this isn’t in compliance. I think what we are saying is the ordinance needs to be rewritten to reflect the concerns of the planning board and probably the zoning board,” he said.
Vince Lombardi also voted yes.
“As long as we address traffic and parking, why can’t we have two locations, two smaller locations? Why do we have to have one big location that requires a massive amount of parking? We need to move it away from dense traffic areas on Route 9,” he said.
Striefsky voted no.
“If it were limited just to sales and had nothing to do with the type of sales, I would have to vote yes, but having been deeply involved in this matter for the last two and a half to three years, there are a lot of unanswered questions that would make it consistent with the master plan,” he said.
He said parking must be addressed and there is “more work that has to be done about distance to schools, churches, apartments, playgrounds and playing fields.”
McGuigan, who attending the meeting, said afterward he was pleased with the outcome.
“I am a big opponent and I’m glad that the planning board found that way and I believe that was pointed out by multiple people for multiple reasons,” he said.
The board recommends City Council make the following amendments to the ordinance:
— Cannabis sales not feasible for Route 9 between Groveland and Pennsylvania avenues. This area should be deleted from the proposed sales area.
— A traffic impact study should be conducted to see how the retail location will potentially impact traffic.
— Parking requirements should be reviewed to ensure that a sufficient minimum parking space requirement is included.
— Consider limiting cannabis businesses to an outer area of the city to avoid traffic congestion.
City Council is scheduled to meet Aug. 24.
By CRAIG D. SCHENCK/Sentinel staff
