Tenafly council agrees to draft micro‑license ordinance, sets committee to refine rules

Council members in Tenafly discussed whether to allow cannabis micro‑licenses in limited zones and agreed to direct staff and the borough cannabis committee to draft an ordinance for future consideration.

The council’s discussion centered on a micro‑licensing model that would limit ownership and staffing to local residents, cap monthly sales, and restrict permitted zones. A staff presenter described the proposed limits as requiring an owner or majority owners to reside in Tenafly or a neighboring municipality, employee residency ties to the same zone, a monthly sales cap of £1,000 for micro operations, and zoning confined to B1, M1 and an SRB border area. The presenter also said the retail downtown zones would be disqualified where a 200‑foot buffer from schools and similar uses applies.

Council members raised public‑safety and market concerns. “I have not seen huge success of the small towns of cannabis so far,” Councilmember Lauren said, adding that many residents currently travel to neighboring towns or the city for purchases. Councilmember Jamie said he favored permitting micro‑licenses: “It’s legal. Some revenue is better than giving revenue to another town.” Several members said they were more open to manufacturing or wholesale operations than full retail.

Police oversight and compliance were recurring themes. The presenter said the police chief had reviewed experiences in nearby towns and reported no major issues, but council members asked for enforceable security plans and age‑restriction controls. Staff and council also discussed the need to route a draft ordinance through the planning board for master plan review.

By the end of the discussion the council asked Wendy and Gabby (borough staff) to work with the cannabis committee to prepare a draft ordinance for return to council; the council agreed to have the draft come back for a first reading once prepared. No formal ordinance vote occurred at the meeting.

The council requested that the draft address: local‑owner residency requirements, specific permitted zones, security and age‑verification standards, the monthly sales cap for micro‑licenses, and coordination with the planning board and police for enforcement.

Council members said they wanted specifics before making a final decision, including a zoning map, a final list of permitted and disqualified locations, and model security plans to present to the council and public for comment.