Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cannabis Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lakehurst advances cannabis site-standards ordinance as residents raise school-safety concerns
Summary
Council advanced Ordinance #2025-03 (amending site standards for licensed cannabis operations) on first reading. Residents at the work session and public comment urged caution about store hours and potential pedestrian conflicts near school routes.
Get email alerts on the Cannabis Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Lakehurst Borough Council approved Ordinance #2025-03 on first reading on March 20, a change to Section 32.4 of Chapter 25 proposing site standards for licensed cannabis operations.
During the earlier work session public comment period, resident Christopher Chillemi said he was concerned that retail storefronts opening at 8:00 a.m. could coincide with children walking to school, creating potentially hazardous pedestrian-vehicle interactions. Bruce Margeson, also a resident, said Lakehurst is a walking district and agreed that an 8:00 a.m. opening could negatively affect children, though he said he had no problem with businesses staying open later in the day.
At full public comment later in the meeting, David Burton, a Lakehurst resident, asked how the borough would use the 2% host-community share from cannabis businesses and whether residents would see tax relief. Council President Oglesby responded that the money is being used for debt service. Ian Goldman added to the public record that state or funding rules may prevent dedicating the revenue to a single line item and that amounts often must be dispersed among eligible categories, including recreation.
The ordinance’s text as presented references amendments to local site standards; the council did not record a detailed debate over specific permitted hours, buffer distances from schools, or licensing caps during the first-reading action. The ordinance will return for further readings and a public hearing where those operational details can be debated and changed.
Residents also asked whether cannabis revenue could be directed toward school programs; the council’s recorded response cited debt-service use and a general constraint on dedicating funds to a single line item. No formal fiscal policy change was adopted at the March 20 meeting.
