Stockton Borough Council denies local support for two cannabis retail applicants

Stockton Borough Council voted 4-0 on Dec. 4 to deny issuing letters of local support to two applicants seeking a Class 5 cannabis retail license, the council said, after a review committee found neither application met the RFA’s minimum 80-point threshold.

Mayor Aaron Lipsen opened the special meeting and recounted the borough’s cannabis-policy history, saying Stockton adopted Ordinance 2021-04 shortly after the state legalized adult-use cannabis and later passed Ordinance 2024-12 to permit one Class 5 retail license as a conditional use with a prescribed RFA and scoring rubric.

Tom Hunt, chair of the borough’s Cannabis Review Committee, told the council the committee and its contracted consultants evaluated both submissions against a published scoring guide. "The committee's recommendation is that neither applicant should be issued a letter of support," Hunt said, and noted the maximum base score was 115 and the RFA required a minimum of 80 points to proceed.

Borough Attorney Lisa Maddox explained the committee produced two internal reports summarizing its findings and scoring and said the reports are not public records under OPRA because they contain security, proprietary, personal and deliberative information. She advised each applicant may request a copy of their own report by making a Common Law request using the borough’s OPRA form.

Council opened discussion. Councilperson Brown, Councilperson Meltzer, Council President Mann and Chair Hunt each voiced support for accepting the committee’s recommendation. Brown moved and Hunt seconded a resolution (2025-88) denying issuance of letters of local support; the roll-call vote recorded Brown, Hunt, Mann and Meltzer in favor (Ayes: 4; Nays: 0). The motion passed.

The resolution identifies the two applicants as Local Flower, LLC (25 Risler Street) and Happy Tree Farmacy, LLC (8 Risler Street), and records that the Review Committee engaged Phoenix Advisors to analyze financial aspects and Jersey Professional Management to investigate applicants’ operational and regulatory histories. The RFA was advertised March 19, 2025; the scoring guide addendum was published June 2, 2025; and the application deadline was extended to Aug. 6, 2025. The resolution states the committee found neither application achieved the minimum 80 points required by the RFA and therefore recommended denial of local support.

During an open public-comment period, Peyton Odenwald identified herself as the daughter of one applicant and urged the council to consider community benefit. Applicant Micheal Odenwald told the council he felt the process had ignored his data and contribution to the community, saying the decision showed "disrespect" and criticized specific council members by name. Applicant Raaj acknowledged submission inconsistencies (including a planned business-name change and a late business tax registration) and said his existing New Jersey dispensary pays "about $84,000 a year in taxes to our municipality," a point he raised to highlight potential municipal revenue.

Mayor Lipsen thanked the applicants for their submissions and reiterated that the committee’s review and the council’s action were intended to be based on objective analysis of the applications. The meeting concluded with an announcement that the next council meeting will be Dec. 15 at 7 p.m.; the special meeting adjourned at 8:34 p.m.

Notes: applicants may seek their application-specific committee reports via a Common Law request as described by the borough attorney. The council’s action is limited to issuance of local support; any state license remains subject to state review and approval.