CLEARY GIACOBBE ALFIERI JACOBS PREVAILS IN PREROGATIVE WRITS ACTION, OVERTURNING PLANNING BOARD’S DENIAL OF CLIENT’S CAANABIS DISPENSARY APPLICATION

On August 15, 2025, the Honorable Rudolph A. Filko, A.J.S.C., in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Passaic County, issued an order and opinion in This Budz 4 U, LLC v. Planning/Zoning Board of the Borough of Haledon, reversing the Defendant’s denial of Plaintiff’s application for preliminary and final major site plan approval and granting the application in its entirety.

The Plaintiff’s action in lieu of prerogative writs challenged the Defendant’s denial of its application to operate a Class 5 Adult Use Cannabis Retail Dispensary at 490 Haledon Avenue, a permitted use in the Borough’s C-Business Zone, on grounds that the denial was arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable. Our Firm represented the Plaintiff, This Budz 4 U, LLC, which sought site plan approval with a single bulk variance for pre-existing nonconforming parking space dimensions, but faced denial based on the Board’s interpretation of a 500-foot distance requirement between the proposed cannabis establishment and a daycare center under Borough Code. The Board erroneously included an adjacent easement in measuring the distance, reducing it below 500 feet, despite expert testimony and surveys showing compliance when measured appropriately. Our Firm filed the action in July 2024, seeking reversal of the denial.

The Court agreed with the Firm’s arguments that no variance was required for the distance to the nearby daycare, conducting a de novo review of the Ordinance and finding the Board’s broad interpretation of “operate” inconsistent with state statutes, analogous liquor license measurement standards under N.J.S.A. § 33:1-76, and definitions in N.J.A.C. 17:30-1.2 limiting the premises to the enclosed building.

Accordingly, the Court found the denial unsupported by the record, as the Board ignored credible expert testimony from Plaintiff’s civil engineer, traffic expert, and business owner, as well as its own engineer and attorney, who confirmed compliance and recommended door-to-door measurement. The Court further highlighted the Board’s failure to evaluate any purported variance needs or negative impacts in its resolution, rendering the decision arbitrary.

Daniel Lagana, Partner of the Firm, argued the matter before the Court, and Daniel Lagana and Heather Goldstein, Partner of the Firm, prepared the briefs.