Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cannabis Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves first reading of local cannabis licensing and penalty scheme
Summary
On first reading council introduced Ordinance 2026-10 to create a local licensing regime for cannabis establishments, set application and annual license fees, security requirements and fines ($2,500/$5,000/$10,000). The motion passed 6–1 with Councilwoman Gorshkov opposed.
Get email alerts on the Cannabis Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Borough Council on April 7 introduced Ordinance 2026-10 to add Article II, "Cannabis Establishments," to Chapter 54 of the borough code and establish a local licensing framework for cannabis cultivation, manufacturing, distribution and retail.
The ordinance incorporates the definitions from the New Jersey Cannabis Regulatory, Enforcement Assistance, and Marketplace Modernization Act and sets application and annual license fees. Example fees in the text include a $2,500 nonrefundable application fee; annual license fees such as Class 1 micro cultivator $5,000, retailer Class 5 $10,000, and a stated maximum number of retail/treatment center licenses of two. It requires submission of state licensure materials, proof of tax payments, emergency contact information and an approved security plan submitted to the Washington Township Police as part of the local licensing process.
The ordinance also establishes a process for suspension or revocation of local licenses with written notice and hearing rights and prescribes civil fines of $2,500 for a first offense, $5,000 for a second and $10,000 for a third offense. During discussion Councilmember France asked whether the local licensing duplicates state authority; Manager Brian Bond said the local license allows the borough greater regulatory control and the ability to revoke locally. Councilmember Gorshkov questioned the size of fines and cited New Jersey bill S449, arguing the penalties may be excessive and potentially unconstitutional; she and Attorney Erik Peterson disagreed over which statutory text applied, and Mayor Cox asked the attorney to review the question further.
A motion to approve Ordinance 2026-10 on first reading passed by roll call vote, Ayes: 6, Nays: 1 (Gorshkov).
