NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited . R. 1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-2248-24
THE CANNABIS PLACE 420 CORP.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF JERSEY CITY and KUSHMART JERSEY, LLC,
Defendants-Respondents. ___________________________
THE CITY OF JERSEY CITY and KUSHMART JERSEY, LLC,
Defendants-Respondents. ____________________________
Submitted February 25, 2026 – Decided March 18, 2026 Before Judges Smith and Berdote Byrne.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Hudson County, Docket Nos. L-1175-23 and L-4093-23.
Aloia Law Firm LLC, attorneys for appellant (Brian J. Aloia, of counsel and on the briefs).
Santo T. Alampi, LLC, attorney for respondent Planning Board of the City of Jersey City (Santo T. Alampi, on the brief).
Sills Cummis & Gross, PC, attorneys for respondent Kushmart Jersey, LLC (Frank J. Vitolo, on the brief).
Brittany M. Murray, Acting Corporation Counsel, City of Jersey City, attorney for respondent City of Jersey City, joins in the brief of respondent Planning Board of City of Jersey City.
PER CURIAM
The Cannabis Place 420 Corp. (plaintiff) appeals the trial court's February
14, 2025 order denying relief sought in its complaints in lieu of prerogative writs
filed against the Jersey City Planning Board, the City of Jersey City, and
Kushmart Jersey LLC, a cannabis retailer (Kushmart). The two complaints,
subsequently consolidated, sought to set aside: (1) the planning board's March
21, 2023 approval of Kushmart as a conditional use; and (2) the City Council's
October 25, 2023 resolution of local support in favor of Kushmart.
A-2248-24 2 Plaintiff alleged the approvals violated the City's zoning ordinance, which
defined cannabis retailers as permitted conditional uses. One of the conditions
required cannabis retailers to be separated by 600 feet. Plaintiff and Kushmart
are separated by approximately 300 feet.
We dismiss the appeal as moot because Jersey City has since amended its
zoning ordinance to eliminate the 600-foot rule. Pursuant to the new ordinance,
cannabis retailers are now permitted principal uses, not permitted conditional
uses. A favorable judgment would have no effect, because the 600-foot rule no
longer prevents Kushmart from opening its proposed location.
I.
On April 6, 2023, plaintiff filed an amended complaint in lieu of
prerogative writs against the Jersey City Planning Board and Kushmart. The
complaint challenged the planning board's March 21, 2023 grant of conditional
use approval to Kushmart. On November 20, 2023, plaintiff filed a second
complaint in lieu of prerogative writs against the City of Jersey City and
Kushmart. The second complaint challenged the City Council's October 25,
2023 resolution of local support in favor of Kushmart. The trial cou rt
consolidated the two complaints on December 15, 2023.
A-2248-24 3 On February 14, 2025, the court heard argument and denied the relief
sought in both complaints.
II.
The Cannabis Regulatory, Enforcement Assistance, and Marketplace
Modernization Act (CREAMMA), N.J.S.A. 24:6I-31 to -56, establishes a State
licensing protocol for cannabis businesses. CREAMMA also empowers
municipalities to enact ordinances regulating cannabis establishments. See
N.J.S.A. 24:6I-45(a)(1). Pursuant to this authority, the City enacted Ordinance
21-053 (the Ordinance) on August 18, 2021. The Ordinance establishes two
prerequisites for the opening of a Class 5 1 cannabis retail establishment: (1)
approval from the planning board as a permitted conditional use; and (2)
issuance of a cannabis license by the City.
The Ordinance defines Class 5 cannabis retailers as a permitted
conditional use subject to approval by the planning board. A conditional use is
"a use permitted in a particular zoning district only upon a showing that such
use in a specified location will comply with the conditions and standards for the
location or operation of such use as contained in the zoning ordinance, and upon
1 CREAMMA regulates several kinds of cannabis businesses (cultivator, manufacturer, distributor, etc.), each of which is designated as a class. "Class 5" refers to cannabis retailers. See N.J.S.A. 24:6I-42. A-2248-24 4 the issuance of an authorization therefor by the planning board." N.J.S.A.
40:55D-3. One of the conditions is that "[t]he main entry door of any Cannabis
Establishment subject to a Class 5 license . . . shall be separated from one
another by a distance of at least six hundred (600) feet." As part of the
application process, the Ordinance requires the applicant to provide a map of
nearby cannabis establishments. The Ordinance also provides that "[a] list of
cannabis establishments shall be made available by the State [Cannabis
Regulatory] Commission or City of Jersey City Division of City Planning" but
does not specify when an establishment should be added to this list.
Because the Ordinance was silent as to when a cannabis retailer was first
established for purposes of the 600-foot rule, the planning board was faced an
interpretative problem when it began to receive concurrent applications for
potential businesses within 600 feet of each other. The planning board
announced its solution to this problem at a March 28, 2022 meeting: a retail
cannabis establishment would be added to the map and trigger the 600-foot rule
when it "pulls [construction] permits after first getting all local and state
approvals and resolutions." In sum, this would mean that, to be added to the
map, the business must have: (1) received planning board approval; (2) received
A-2248-24 5 a license from the City's Cannabis Control Board; (3) received a State license;
and (4) been granted building permits from the City.
Aside from compliance with zoning regulations, the Ordinance also
requires an applicant to obtain a license from the City. To this end, the
Ordinance created a licensing body, the Cannabis Control Board, which is tasked
with "review[ing] all applications to ensure compliance with local rules and
regulations governing the operation of cannabis establishments and cannabis
distributor[s] and, when the Board deems appropriate, to provide local support
of the application in the form of a board resolution."
Even if a cannabis business receives the necessary municipal approvals, a
cannabis business may not begin operations until it is licensed by the State
Cannabis Regulatory Commission. Municipal approval is a prerequisite for the
issuance of a State License.2 See N.J.A.C. 17:30-7.8(a)(3) to (4); N.J.A.C.
17:30-7.10(b)(7) to (8).
2 Municipal approval is not a prerequisite for a conditional license, "which is issued pursuant to an abbreviated application process, after which the conditional license holder shall have a limited period of time in which to become fully licensed by satisfying all of the remaining conditions for licensure which were not required for the issuance of the conditional license." N.J.S.A. 24:6I - 33.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited . R. 1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-2248-24
THE CANNABIS PLACE 420 CORP.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
PLANNING BOARD OF THE CITY OF JERSEY CITY and KUSHMART JERSEY, LLC,
Defendants-Respondents. ___________________________
THE CITY OF JERSEY CITY and KUSHMART JERSEY, LLC,
Defendants-Respondents. ____________________________
Submitted February 25, 2026 – Decided March 18, 2026 Before Judges Smith and Berdote Byrne.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Hudson County, Docket Nos. L-1175-23 and L-4093-23.
Aloia Law Firm LLC, attorneys for appellant (Brian J. Aloia, of counsel and on the briefs).
Santo T. Alampi, LLC, attorney for respondent Planning Board of the City of Jersey City (Santo T. Alampi, on the brief).
Sills Cummis & Gross, PC, attorneys for respondent Kushmart Jersey, LLC (Frank J. Vitolo, on the brief).
Brittany M. Murray, Acting Corporation Counsel, City of Jersey City, attorney for respondent City of Jersey City, joins in the brief of respondent Planning Board of City of Jersey City.
PER CURIAM
The Cannabis Place 420 Corp. (plaintiff) appeals the trial court's February
14, 2025 order denying relief sought in its complaints in lieu of prerogative writs
filed against the Jersey City Planning Board, the City of Jersey City, and
Kushmart Jersey LLC, a cannabis retailer (Kushmart). The two complaints,
subsequently consolidated, sought to set aside: (1) the planning board's March
21, 2023 approval of Kushmart as a conditional use; and (2) the City Council's
October 25, 2023 resolution of local support in favor of Kushmart.
A-2248-24 2 Plaintiff alleged the approvals violated the City's zoning ordinance, which
defined cannabis retailers as permitted conditional uses. One of the conditions
required cannabis retailers to be separated by 600 feet. Plaintiff and Kushmart
are separated by approximately 300 feet.
We dismiss the appeal as moot because Jersey City has since amended its
zoning ordinance to eliminate the 600-foot rule. Pursuant to the new ordinance,
cannabis retailers are now permitted principal uses, not permitted conditional
uses. A favorable judgment would have no effect, because the 600-foot rule no
longer prevents Kushmart from opening its proposed location.
I.
On April 6, 2023, plaintiff filed an amended complaint in lieu of
prerogative writs against the Jersey City Planning Board and Kushmart. The
complaint challenged the planning board's March 21, 2023 grant of conditional
use approval to Kushmart. On November 20, 2023, plaintiff filed a second
complaint in lieu of prerogative writs against the City of Jersey City and
Kushmart. The second complaint challenged the City Council's October 25,
2023 resolution of local support in favor of Kushmart. The trial cou rt
consolidated the two complaints on December 15, 2023.
A-2248-24 3 On February 14, 2025, the court heard argument and denied the relief
sought in both complaints.
II.
The Cannabis Regulatory, Enforcement Assistance, and Marketplace
Modernization Act (CREAMMA), N.J.S.A. 24:6I-31 to -56, establishes a State
licensing protocol for cannabis businesses. CREAMMA also empowers
municipalities to enact ordinances regulating cannabis establishments. See
N.J.S.A. 24:6I-45(a)(1). Pursuant to this authority, the City enacted Ordinance
21-053 (the Ordinance) on August 18, 2021. The Ordinance establishes two
prerequisites for the opening of a Class 5 1 cannabis retail establishment: (1)
approval from the planning board as a permitted conditional use; and (2)
issuance of a cannabis license by the City.
The Ordinance defines Class 5 cannabis retailers as a permitted
conditional use subject to approval by the planning board. A conditional use is
"a use permitted in a particular zoning district only upon a showing that such
use in a specified location will comply with the conditions and standards for the
location or operation of such use as contained in the zoning ordinance, and upon
1 CREAMMA regulates several kinds of cannabis businesses (cultivator, manufacturer, distributor, etc.), each of which is designated as a class. "Class 5" refers to cannabis retailers. See N.J.S.A. 24:6I-42. A-2248-24 4 the issuance of an authorization therefor by the planning board." N.J.S.A.
40:55D-3. One of the conditions is that "[t]he main entry door of any Cannabis
Establishment subject to a Class 5 license . . . shall be separated from one
another by a distance of at least six hundred (600) feet." As part of the
application process, the Ordinance requires the applicant to provide a map of
nearby cannabis establishments. The Ordinance also provides that "[a] list of
cannabis establishments shall be made available by the State [Cannabis
Regulatory] Commission or City of Jersey City Division of City Planning" but
does not specify when an establishment should be added to this list.
Because the Ordinance was silent as to when a cannabis retailer was first
established for purposes of the 600-foot rule, the planning board was faced an
interpretative problem when it began to receive concurrent applications for
potential businesses within 600 feet of each other. The planning board
announced its solution to this problem at a March 28, 2022 meeting: a retail
cannabis establishment would be added to the map and trigger the 600-foot rule
when it "pulls [construction] permits after first getting all local and state
approvals and resolutions." In sum, this would mean that, to be added to the
map, the business must have: (1) received planning board approval; (2) received
A-2248-24 5 a license from the City's Cannabis Control Board; (3) received a State license;
and (4) been granted building permits from the City.
Aside from compliance with zoning regulations, the Ordinance also
requires an applicant to obtain a license from the City. To this end, the
Ordinance created a licensing body, the Cannabis Control Board, which is tasked
with "review[ing] all applications to ensure compliance with local rules and
regulations governing the operation of cannabis establishments and cannabis
distributor[s] and, when the Board deems appropriate, to provide local support
of the application in the form of a board resolution."
Even if a cannabis business receives the necessary municipal approvals, a
cannabis business may not begin operations until it is licensed by the State
Cannabis Regulatory Commission. Municipal approval is a prerequisite for the
issuance of a State License.2 See N.J.A.C. 17:30-7.8(a)(3) to (4); N.J.A.C.
17:30-7.10(b)(7) to (8).
2 Municipal approval is not a prerequisite for a conditional license, "which is issued pursuant to an abbreviated application process, after which the conditional license holder shall have a limited period of time in which to become fully licensed by satisfying all of the remaining conditions for licensure which were not required for the issuance of the conditional license." N.J.S.A. 24:6I - 33. During the conditional license phase the licensee may not "engage in purchasing, possessing, selling, cultivating, manufacturing, or selling cannabis or cannabis products." N.J.A.C. 17:30-7.6(e) A-2248-24 6 Plaintiff's Application Timeline
On April 27, 2022, plaintiff applied to the planning board for conditional
use approval and to the Cannabis Control Board for a city-issued license. On
May 24, 2022, after a public hearing, the planning board approved the
application, which was memorialized on July 12, 2022. On July 11, 2022, the
Cannabis Control Board approved plaintiff's application. On September 8,
2022, the City Council adopted a resolution of local support endorsing plaintiff's
application. The New Jersey Cannabis Regulatory Commission issued a
conditional license to plaintiff on October 28, 2022. On January 20, 2023, the
building department granted construction permits to plaintiff.
Kushmart's Application Timeline Kushmart applied to the Cannabis Control Board on May 17, 2022, and
the application was approved on July 11, 2022. On July 25, 2022, Kushmart
submitted a conditional use application to the planning board, but it did not pay
the filing fee until September 9. The planning board held hearings on February
7 and February 21, 2023. It granted the conditional use application, which was
memorialized on March 21, 2023. On October 25, 2023, the City Council
adopted a resolution of support in favor of Kushmart.
A-2248-24 7 Subsequent Repeal of the 600-Foot Rule
On April 23, 2025, Jersey City enacted Ordinance 23-078, which
substantially amended the zoning regulations for cannabis establishments.
Ordinance 23-078 eliminated both the 600-foot rule and the classification of
cannabis retailers as permitted conditional uses. Instead, Ordinance 23-078
states that Class 5 Cannabis retailers are "permitted principal uses" in several
enumerated zones and "in any district, zone, overlay, or subdistrict of a
Redevelopment Plan where retail sales of goods and services is a permitted
principal use."
III.
We review municipal board decisions under "the same standard as the trial
court." Cohen v. Bd. of Adj., 396 N.J. Super. 608, 614-15 (App. Div. 2007).
This requires deference unless the board acted in an arbitrary, capricious, or
unreasonable manner. Price v. Himeji, LLC, 214 N.J. 263, 284 (2013).
"[B]ecause of their peculiar knowledge of local conditions[, zoning boards] must
be allowed wide latitude in the exercise of delegated discretion." Ibid. (quoting
Kramer v. Bd. of Adj., 45 N.J. 268, 296 (1965)). "A board acts arbitrarily,
capriciously, or unreasonably if its findings of fact . . . are not supported by the
record, or if it usurps power reserved to the municipal governing body or another
A-2248-24 8 duly authorized municipal official." Ten Stary Dom P'ship v. Mauro, 216 N.J.
16, 33 (2013) (citations omitted). However, we review questions of law,
including the interpretation of an ordinance, de novo. Dunbar Homes, Inc. v.
Zoning Bd. of Adj., 233 N.J. 546, 559 (2018).
"An issue is considered moot if the ruling sought will 'have no practical
effect on the existing controversy' when a decision is rendered." Malanga v.
Twp. of W. Orange, 253 N.J. 291, 307 (2023) (quoting Redd v. Bowman, 223
N.J. 87, 104 (2015)). However, "if an issue raised is a matter of great public
interest, our courts will often decline to dismiss an appeal because it is moot."
Ibid.
The appeal is moot because the zoning Ordinance has since been amended
to eliminate the 600-foot buffer rule. The amended Ordinance now permits
Kushmart to open its business within 600 feet of plaintiff. A decision in
plaintiff's favor invalidating Kushmart's conditional use approval and the City
Council's resolution of support would have no "practical effect." See ibid.
Pursuant to the amended Ordinance, Kushmart is now a permitted principal use,
and the 600-foot rule is no longer an obstacle. Kushmart may expeditiously seek
the same approvals the complaints in lieu of prerogative writs sought to set
aside. See Jai Sai Ram, LLC v. Plan./Zoning Bd. of Borough of S. Toms River,
A-2248-24 9 446 N.J. Super. 338, 345 (App. Div. 2016) (holding challenge to variance is
moot when ordinance is subsequently amended to permit the challenged use);
Mazza v. Bd. of Adj., 47 N.J. 161, 162 (1966) (per curiam) (dismissing as moot
a challenge to the grant of a variance when ordinance was subsequently amended
to permit the use).
Moreover, the Time of Application rule (TOA), N.J.S.A. 40:55D-10.5,
does not affect our conclusion with respect to mootness because TOA, which
locks in the governing municipal regulations at the time an application is filed,
does not apply when an ordinance is amended to permit the challenged use. Jai
Sai Ram, 446 N.J. Super. at 345. The TOA applies only to matters where the
applicant is rejected because of a change in law after the application is
submitted. See Hoboken for Responsible Cannabis, Inc. v. City of Hoboken
Plan. Bd., 480 N.J. Super. 357, 378 (App. Div. 2024) (applying TOA rule to
cannabis applicant to prevent the operation of buffer requirement adopted after
the applicant submitted its application).
Dismissed as moot.
A-2248-24 10