Jump To

Top Caption Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 18, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

The Cannabis Place 420 Corp. v. Planning Board of the City of Jersey City

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: A-2248-24

• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Opinion

• Authorities (8)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (10.7K)

• PDF

Combined Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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 CANNABIS PLACE
420 CORP.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

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