This is a printer-friendly version of an article from Zip06.com.
07/04/2023 07:43 AMOn June 26, the Zoning Commission voted to deny two of the three requests from the applicant to modify conditions for a recently approved cannabis store in Westbrook.
In January, the commission approved an application from BUDR Holding 3 LLC to open a retail cannabis store at 755 Boston Post Road with several conditions. However, on April 20, Ian Butler, an attorney representing the applicant, sent a letter to Westbrook Zoning Enforcement Officer Steve Hnatuk seeking to modify some of the conditions.
A public hearing was supposed to be opened on May 22, but at the start of the Zoning Commission meeting, Chairman Harry Ruppenicker Jr. said that notices hadn’t been delivered to abutting property owners as is required, so the hearing would be tabled a month. The application was not further remarked on that evening.
At the meeting on June 26, the public hearing was opened and closed, and the commission voted to deny two of the requested changes while granting one.
The commission voted 4-1 to deny requests to change conditions regarding delivery times and paving but did approve the request to leave the generator and utility box on the property with Harry Ruppenicker Jr., Linda Nolf, Mike J.Engels, Jr, and Dwayne Xenelis in favor.
Member Vincent J. Gentile voted against the motion because he said he was in favor of approving all three requested changes by the applicant.
Requested Changes
The largest change the applicant was asking for was a modification to the condition that limits delivery times to when school is not in session due to a bus stop located near the business. In his letter, Butler argued the condition interferes with the state’s regulations that concern deliveries and is illegal.
“By prohibiting certain delivery times, the transporter is unable to truly randomize their delivery times. This makes it impossible for the transporter to comply with the state regulations. And would therefore make it impossible for the retailer to receive any deliveries,” Butler wrote.
However, the commission felt that while the state’s guidelines were vague, the condition placed on the applicant by the Zoning Commission was not illegal.
Another change Butler requested was to modify the requirement to pave rear parking spots on the property. He contended that paving the spaces would interfere with stormwater runoff, complicate access to the septic tank, and interfere with a leeching field on the property.
Instead of paving, Butler offered that the applicant uses wheel stops, signage, and curbs to show where parking spaces are without paving.
According to documents available online, Thomas Fenton of Nathan L. Jacobson and Associates, Inc., the town’s engineering consultant, reviewed the application for the commission. In a letter, Fenton wrote that while he agreed that paving the lot could increase runoff and make it more difficult to reach the leeching field, it wasn’t impossible to do if the commission required it.
“In summary, both points present reasonable reasons for maintaining a pervious surface but would not bar paving the area if, in the Commission’s evaluation, there are benefits to paving that outweigh these considerations. Those benefits could include: a more stable and uniform surface, the ability to clearly delineate parking stalls to maintain orderly parking, and minimizing the need for ongoing surface maintenance (periodic regrading or refreshing of the stone surface material),” Fenton wrote.
The final modification request by the applicant is to not remove a generator and utility box on the property but instead screen it in with landscaping so it is not visible. The generator and utility box were placed on the property sometime in the past, possibly without required approval.
“Modification or removal of the transformer is not possible without the cooperation of Eversource, which presents a substantial difficulty, delay, and expense,” Butler said.
As part of the commission’s decision, the applicant must submit a site plan showing how the generator and box will be landscaped into the property.
A Controversial Application
Butler initially asked in April that the Zoning Commission grant the modification requests without a public hearing, something Butler wrote the commission has the authority to do for minor changes.
However, at April’s meeting, the commission members ruled that the requested changes warranted a public hearing.
The request to undo the modifications without a public hearing irked some members of the community, and Butler didn’t earn many new friends in the audience at the June 26 meeting when he addressed what he felt was the “elephant in the room.”
Butler told the commission that he believed that people were only upset at the modification requests because they were uneasy that the commission had approved the earlier retail marijuana application. “If this was any other business, we wouldn’t have this,” Butler said.
“We don’t often see a PowerPoint made we don’t want to pave,” Butler said in reference to a presentation from residents Jack Zamary and David Russell that argued why the commission should keep the conditions in place.
Butler said that many of those in attendance at the meeting are the same people who are appealing the previous Zoning Commission approval in court.
During their time speaking, Zamary and Russell said that they were worried that without a paved lot that delineated spots, visitors would improperly park on residential property surrounding the business. They also spoke of a fear that the delivery vans could become a target of violent crime. Butler pointed out that there has not been a swath of medical marijuana delivery robberies despite medical marijuana being legal in the state for several years.
The application by BUDR has been a source of controversy for nearly seven months now. The commission received the application for the proposed 1,500-square-foot retail marijuana store to open in November 2022.
In 2021, Connecticut legislators passed a bill legalizing recreational marijuana use by adults in the state. The bill left it up to local municipalities to control its sale in each town.
In July 2022, Westbrook’s Zoning Commission approved regulations that allowed retail marijuana stores by special permit in the neighborhood commercial, turnpike interchange, industrial, and light industrial districts.
Despite several attempts to solicit public opinion, including public hearings and a community survey, the zoning commission received little feedback on the topic.
Once the BUDR application was filed, however, the public interest increased.
Across the two public hearings concerning the application, the vast majority of speakers were against the application. Residents voiced concerns about increased traffic, fear of increased crime, and a negative reputation for the town.
While most actual speakers at the public hearings have been against the application, social media comments from residents have been more favorable to the applicant.
Many comments pointed out that the property used to house a liquor store, and despite the dangers of alcohol use, there was never a public outcry as there has been with marijuana. Others said they felt that with marijuana sale now legal in Connecticut, there wasn’t a reason to oppose the application.
Following the approval of the application in January, a group of residents filed an appeal of the decision in Middletown Superior Court, according to the state’s judicial website.
The suit was filed by a group of property owners, including Zamary, Russell, Jay Mulligan, Vincent Catelotti, Lynne Catelotti, and Peter Jaquay. According to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that the Commission “acted illegally, arbitrarily, unreasonably” in approving the application.
The lawsuit is ongoing, according to the state judicial website.