Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Cannabis topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press Dumont council for more study and a public voice on possible cannabis sales; attorney-selection process draws criticism
Summary
Public commenters and several councilors raised parking, tax-revenue and zoning concerns about a possible retail or manufacturing cannabis operation in Dumont and criticized the process used to select outside counsel; residents urged a resident survey or ballot question before moving ahead.
A lengthy public-comment period at Monday’s Dumont Borough meeting centered on a possible change to local rules on cannabis retail, manufacturing or cultivation, with residents urging more study, clearer local policy and direct resident input before the council moves forward.
Several residents questioned revenue projections the borough has heard from outside proponents, citing Rochelle Park’s reported first-year receipts (a figure several speakers said was $676,000, not $700,000) and noting a 25% decline in that town’s quarterly receipts over the last year. Speakers warned that retail dispensaries often generate significant foot and vehicle traffic and raised concerns about limited downtown parking and the 1,000-foot buffers near schools and other sensitive sites.
The council’s ordinance committee had earlier met with an attorney, Ronald A. Mandelle (presented to the committee as a cannabis attorney for multiple New Jersey municipalities). Several residents criticized the committee for not sharing the attorney’s proposal and background in advance and questioned the process by which the attorney was engaged. A list quoted from the attorney’s presentation included Jersey City, Hoboken, Atlantic City, Asbury Park, Rochelle Park and others, which residents said made it unclear how comparable those municipalities are to Dumont.
Speakers suggested low-cost ways for the council to get broader resident input, including a verified online survey limited to current residents or a nonbinding ballot question on a November election. Councilors said they welcome more public feedback, that the committee’s outreach included calls with other municipal administrators and that no final decision to change local law has been made. One councilor said the original engagement of counsel may have been premature and that more internal research could be performed first.
The discussion did not produce any ordinance change at the meeting. Council and staff said the next steps would include additional public engagement, possible invitations to the attorney to present publicly if requested, and more detailed internal research on revenue, parking and land-use constraints.
