Stockton council approves first reading of ordinance allowing a single cannabis retailer in CR zone

Stockton Borough Council approved on first reading Ordinance 2024-12 on Nov. 18, 2024, a measure that would permit Class 5 cannabis retailers as a conditional use in the borough’s Commercial Residential (CR) zone and set local standards for licensing, buffers, operations and taxes.

The ordinance, introduced and approved on first reading after a procedural recusal, would prohibit all other classes of cannabis businesses in the borough while allowing up to one municipal Class 5 retailer subject to local licensing and state approval. It establishes a 200-foot minimum buffer from schools, municipal parks, playgrounds licensed child care centers and places of worship and requires a minimum 20-foot landscaped buffer adjacent to residential properties (a solid 6-foot fence may be incorporated within that interior buffer). Operating hours would be limited to 9 a.m.–7 p.m. Monday–Saturday and 12 p.m.–5 p.m. on Sundays.

Why it matters: Stockton revisits its 2021 opt-out policy after finding procedural irregularities in the earlier ordinance; the new measure seeks to permit a limited retail presence while giving the borough local standards to protect neighborhood character and public safety.

Key provisions and requirements in the ordinance include: a one-license municipal cap for Class 5 retailers; a nonrefundable application fee of $5,000 and an annual license fee of $10,000 (indexed); security and surveillance requirements (licensed security on site during operating hours, 24/7 alarm and camera retention for a minimum of 60 days); interior-only retail operations (no drive-through, no outdoor structures); minimum loading-zone or secure loading plan; and explicit prohibitions on visible product displays and on on-site consumption. The ordinance also authorizes a two percent municipal transfer tax on sales and a two percent user tax on transfers between license-holder establishments.

Public comment and concerns: Residents raised several recurring concerns during the public comment period. Eileen Foley asked the council to “protect the historic sites” and to craft the ordinance to minimize impacts on the towpath, parks and the borough’s historic character. Steve Giocondo urged clarification of the ordinance’s park definitions, noting that state statute uses the term “park” and that the borough should be explicit about which state or nonmunicipal areas (such as the D&R canal pathway) are treated as municipal parks for buffer purposes. Michael Odenwald, who also spoke at length, criticized the proposed application fee and urged clearer municipal partnerships and transparency; he also raised separate safety concerns about fast-moving e-bikes in town. Dennis Bertland reiterated concerns about right-of-way tree work by the State DOT and related damage.

Procedure and next steps: Attorney Lisa Maddox advised the council that a previously recorded vote needed correction because one council member (Matt Fisher) was recused; the council re-recorded the first-reading approval without the recused member and passed the ordinance on first reading by a 5–0 vote. The ordinance was referred to the Planning Board on Nov. 19, 2024, and a public hearing and final adoption are scheduled for Dec. 16, 2024.

What the ordinance does not decide: The measure governs local land-use, licensing and municipal taxes but does not by itself authorize a business to operate; any applicant must receive state licensure and obtain local site-plan and conditional-use approvals and a municipal license before operating. The council also retained the authority to require additional Planning Board conditions and to limit the number of municipal resolutions of local support per the ordinance’s terms.

The council’s action sets local parameters for a limited retail cannabis presence while leaving final licensing to state review and to subsequent local land-use approvals. A final adoption vote is scheduled for Dec. 16, 2024.