Edison Town Council introduces ordinance to expand permissible marijuana establishment areas

By Jodie Hur
Domestic Affairs
Edison Town Council introduces ordinance to expand permissible marijuana establishment areas

The Edison Township Council meets at their Feb. 15 combined meeting. EDISON TV/Livestream

EDISON, N.J., Feb. 26 (ZFJ) — Edison Township held a combined council meeting on Feb. 15 that discussed a proposed ordinance that would expand the areas in which cannabis establishments can be approved in.

The ordinance’s public hearing and final adoption was scheduled to be on Wednesday, Feb. 28, but the Municipal Clerk’s Office informed The ZFJ in a phone call on Monday, Feb. 26, that it was going to be removed from the council’s agenda. The clerk’s office did not know when it might be considered again.

The ordinance looks to amend Chapter 37 of the township code, the zoning section, which overlooks the requirements and land use regulations for cannabis business. The current code outlines where cannabis establishment are currently permitted: “The area southeast of Woodbridge Avenue between Amboy Avenue and Mill Road except for areas zoned for any class of residential use or within 1000’ of any area zoned for any class of residential use and as otherwise restricted in this ordinance or by State law.”

The proposed ordinance looks to expand permissible lands to these locations:

LocationLimits
National RoadTalmadge Road to Cul-de-sac
Talmadge RoadNew Durham Road to Route 27
Carter DriveTalmadge Road to Cul-de-sac
US Route 1Plainfield Ave to Old Post Road (south)
Woodbridge AvenuePlainfield Avenue to Garden State Parkway Ramps

Map of the general area where cannabis establishments are currently permitted (in green) and zone expansions proposed by O.2211-2024 (in purple). This map does not account for exempt areas—that is, anywhere zoned for residential use, within 1000’ of residential zones, or otherwise restricted by state law. ZFJ/Alvin Wu

Councilman Ajay Patil was a part of the cannabis subcommittee when the zones were originally laid down. He “completely disagrees” with the proposal of adding the locations mentioned above. He stated that the “same locations were discussed three years ago… the reasoning was very simple… I don’t think this is the right business we should allow around the residential area.” He continued on to warn that the locations will “be in and around striking distance of most of the schools.” Patil said that “this type of business… will be detrimental not to the property values, but to the entire school system”.

Councilman John H. Poyner supports the expansion, with the “understanding and impression that the buffer requirements are still applicable.” These ‘buffer zones’ are outlined in the original township code, prohibiting cannabis businesses within 1000’ from any class of residential use. Poyner believes “that is time for us to expand access in Edison Township.” Poyner’s support stems from the medical benefits cannabis provides: “the primary benefit to me is with those whom cannabis helps, specifically for medical purposes.”

Council Vice President Margot Harris agreed with Poyner and is in favor of the proposed ordinance with the understanding of the medical benefits as well as the revenue aspects.

Councilman Richard Brescher argued against the proposed ordinance, deeming it a “quality of life issue.” He proposed that if the amendment is to be ordained, it should only be if there are also “pot shops where all our Council people live.” He continued to argue that physical buildings are unnecessary as pot can be ordered online and delivered to houses.

Councilman Joe Coyle expressed his support, noting that it’s safer to buy marijuana from a regulated dispensary than on the streets.

“I prefer someone not shopping outside the black market to get something possibly laced with fentanyl, which is extremely dangerous… and to go to a qualified shop and make a purchase,” he said.

With a final comment from Council President Nishith Patel, who was in favor of the expansion, stating, “We are here to serve, and the township voted for legalization by 60%, so I believe there is a need and a demand for it,” a roll call was taken.

Council members Harris, Poyner, Coyle, Patel, and Asaf Shmuel were all in favor of introducing the proposed ordinance, while Brescher and Patil were against it.

Update 2024-02-26, 16:26 - Added info from clerk’s office about the ordinance’s status on the Feb. 28 council meeting agenda. Also added interactive map of the proposed locations.

References: