Council adopts five-year tax-exemption for Route 35 property amid disclosure and recusal concerns

The Aberdeen Township Council on May 21 approved Ordinance 11-2026, granting a five-year tax exemption and authorizing a tax agreement between Aberdeen Township and Duck Realty LLC for property at Block 241, Lot 1, a site tied to an NJ Leaf Aberdeen LLC cannabis retail operation.

Mark Bishop, a Center Street resident, urged the council to reject the abatement and submitted a written letter for the public record arguing the council had not disclosed the ordinance’s operative Tax Agreement (Attachment A) before the hearing and asking the township attorney to issue a written recusal opinion regarding campaign contributions tied to the applicant’s principal. In the letter Bishop said the principal, Ritesh Shah, made contributions documented in NJ ELEC filings, including $1,000 to “Cannon, Gregory” on July 9, 2025 and $3,000 on Jan. 20, 2026 to a joint committee named “Cannon, Montone & Mirabal Aberdeen Democrats 2025.”

Tax Assessor Scott Kineavy told the council the statutory eligibility test for the abatement is that the property lies in an "Area in need of rehabilitation," and said that is the only requirement to be eligible. Mayor Gregory Cannon said the council was "in the process of getting an opinion on the ordinance." Councilwoman Kelley moved to finally adopt the ordinance; Councilman Swindle seconded the motion. The roll-call vote recorded Ayes from Councilmembers Kelley, Montone, Swindle, Deputy Mayor Hirsch and Mayor Cannon; no Nays or abstentions were recorded.

Bishop’s written submission raised four principal concerns: that the Tax Agreement (Attachment A) was not published with the May 7 introduction packet or otherwise made available before the May 21 hearing; that campaign contributions from the applicant’s principal could pose an appearance-of-impropriety requiring recusal under N.J.S.A. 40A:9-22.5(d) and the New Jersey Supreme Court’s Wyzykowski standard; that municipal statutes governing five-year exemptions are permissive and do not compel approval; and that the applicant’s build-out ($538,255, he said) appears to have been a licensing fit-out driven by Cannabis Regulatory Commission rules rather than a discretionary investment induced by a tax abatement. Bishop asked the township to publish the agreement and provide written legal analysis addressing those points.

The council did not identify Attachment A on the record during the hearing. The Tax Assessor emphasized the property’s rehabilitation-zone eligibility; Mayor Cannon said the township would obtain counsel’s opinion. The council then voted to adopt the ordinance.

The ordinance’s passage does not, in the transcript, include a detailed public accounting of the Tax Agreement’s financial terms; Bishop had specifically requested that the agreement be published at least 48 hours before the hearing and entered into the public record. Bishop’s letter also asked counsel to state the statutory basis, if any, that would compel approval and to explain why recusal is or is not required for Mayor Cannon, Councilwoman Montone and Councilman Mirabal. The council recorded a final adoption vote on May 21; the transcript does not include a written recusal opinion or further published documentation of Attachment A in the meeting record.

What happens next: the ordinance was adopted at the May 21 hearing; Bishop’s letter and the other records he submitted were requested for inclusion in the official record. The transcript indicates the township attorney and staff will be asked to respond to Bishop’s procedural and ethics questions, but the council did not provide a written recusal opinion at the meeting.