Newtown Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) discussed cannabis in town, as well as a questionable vote from its previous meeting, during its February 2 gathering at Newtown Municipal Center.

In attendance were P&Z members Dennis Bloom, Roy Meadows, Corrine Cox, Gregory Rich, Kersti Ferguson, and David Rosen, as well as Land Use Agency Deputy Director of Planning Rob Sibley.

First on the agenda was the continued public hearing for two joint applications submitted by Highway 202, LLC:

*Application 23.01 was for a text amendment to the zoning regulations of the Town of Newtown, to remove Cannabis Establishment from Prohibited Uses; to delete the definition of Cannabis Establishment in Article 1 Section 2 Interpretations and Definitions; to add Cannabis, Cultivator, Dispensary Facility, Cannabis Food and Beverage Manufacturer, Hybrid Retailer, Micro-Cultivator, Person, Cannabis Product Manufacturer, Cannabis Product Packager, and Cannabis Retailer to Article 1, Section 2 Interpretations and Definitions; and to add dispensary facility, hybrid retailer, and cannabis retailer as a Special Use in the M-1 District.

*Application 23.02 was for a Special Exception Use located at 255-259 South Main Street, to permit the use of a Cannabis Retailer. Milford resident Thomas Macre represented the applicant, Highway 202, LLC.

Macre passed out a document with his responses to questions presented at the January 19 P&Z meeting. He had been asked if the applicant has done an analysis comparing traffic volume for liquor stores compared to cannabis retailers.

“We did some research regarding this and, unfortunately, because of the confidential nature of the information, we were unable to obtain specific information for foot traffic from these liquor stores in town. So what we did is use an annual average daily traffic study,” Macre said.

His chart showed that Cork N Barrel and Fairgrounds Wine and Spirits, both located on South Main Street where the applicant hopes to have the cannabis business, had an annual average daily traffic of 16,100.

With that in mind, Macre estimates the cannabis business would experience the same annual average daily traffic. The second question he addressed was if they have looked at other properties in the M-1 Zone that could potentially qualify for a cannabis retailer under the proposed regulations.

“We did an analysis of the 43 listed properties within the M-1 Zoning District, and we believe only 11 properties could potentially qualify under the proposed regulations due to the given land use for each property,” Macre’s document stated.

Out of those 11 properties, the location the applicant is proposing is the farthest distance away from residential properties at 740 feet.

When asked what the average percentage of sales are for dispensaries via delivery service versus in-store pick up, Macre explained that, based on data they received from a Massachusetts cannabis dispensary, it would do between $20,000 and $25,000 per week in delivery sales with one driver.

He estimates that would be “approximately 7 percent of our expected total weekly sales.”

The fourth question that Macre answered was about what the anticipated annual municipal tax revenue would be from the retailer to the Town of Newtown. He projected the Town of Newtown would receive roughly $288,000 from the business for its 3 percent municipal annual tax.

Macre explained that his data was based on sales revenue figures from the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection released on January 18. A breakdown of his math is in a document attached to meeting minutes.

In response to a question about whether the applicant had contacted tenants in the proposed location to see how they feel about a cannabis retailer opening next to them, Macre said, “We have not directly reached out to them. The majority of them are national tenants, but we have the full support of the building owner and landlord.”

Commissioner Remarks

After Macre spoke, Chairman Bloom inquired if the group’s original dispensary in Torrington is the same size as what it would be in Newtown, and Macre said it is “pretty comparable.”

Rich voiced concerns about how the proposed text amendment would allow potentially multiple properties in the M-1 Zone the ability to have a cannabis retailer on-site. He said he is “receptive to one” dispensary, but not this potential amount.

Cox said that she is concerned with youth taking drugs, in this case cannabis, and its impact on people driving.

Macre said, “There [are] studies that suggest that the licensing of new [cannabis] retailers does not increase that … it’s already legalized. I believe that adolescent consumers or underage 21 users will probably find access to it on the black market, and they already do that. I feel that hopefully a regulated market for 21 and older with the right messaging and drug education programs will curb that.”

Rich clarified that the topic on the agenda was not about deciding if marijuana should be legal or not; and said they were there to decide if commissioners want a dispensary in town and want to gain the tax revenue.

Cox inquired why Newtown was chosen for this proposal. Macre said it was based on “geographical location” and the needs of consumers.

Rosen asked if the Torrington facility impacted traffic violations or crime in the area.

“I’m not aware of any traffic violations, and I have a great working relationship with the [Torrington] Chief of Police,” Macre said.

Rosen wondered if the high prices at the dispensary would encourage people to purchase cannabis for cheaper illegally, where it is potentially tainted with other substances.

“That was a huge concern for us when we launched this program,” Macre prefaced. He went on to say that it prompted a conversation with their producers. In the past two weeks they were able to get it to where in the coming months their products will be “on par if not lower than black market prices and lab tested, as well.”

Newtown resident Matt Barnes, on behalf of the applicant, clarified that the text amendment proposed would only allow for one or two cannabis retailers in town, because of the rule of them not being allowed within one mile of each other. The applicant worded specifically how it was written, because they understood Newtown would not want many dispensaries.

Public Response

Newtown resident Lisa Capitani identified herself as a registered nurse in Connecticut for 17 years and was in favor of the applications.

“There are people in our community that are already using cannabis,” she said. “I use cannabis. I am a medical cannabis patient. I use cannabis almost every day of my life since I was 19 years old. I’m successful, I started my own company, I’ve written a book.”

Capitani listed examples of other people who break the stereotype of cannabis users being degenerates, as well as favorable research she has found about cannabis users compared to alcohol users.

Newtown resident Sherry Bermingham spoke next and said, “Do I want more traffic on [Route] 25, do I want impaired traffic on 25? No thank you.”

She added that she felt having a dispensary in a standalone building instead of a strip mall would be easier for policing and for customers. With no more public comment, the two applications’ public hearings were then closed.

Cox read into the record that the text amendment application “is hereby found inconsistent with the plan of conservation and development and shall be disapproved.”

Vice Chair Meadows brought up that the tax revenue was “not very significant,” saying he had concerns with distracted drivers from marijuana. He also did not like the aspect of people entering the establishment through the rear entrance and that the front windows would be fogged.

Rosen addressed the impaired driving concern by explaining, “it happens anyway,” yet Newtown has “many alcohol establishments in town.” He compared a brewery to a cannabis dispensary.

The commission then took a vote where they unanimously agreed to deny the text amendment application. The application denial will become effective February 25.

Cox followed that first vote, by reading into the record that the application for a special exception use “is hereby found inconsistent with the plan of conservation and development and shall be disapproved as being a prohibited use in the Newtown Zoning Regulations.”

P&Z members unanimously agreed to deny the special exception application, too.

Hawleyville Apartments

The next item on the P&Z’s agenda was discussion on the potential motion to rescind the vote on Application 22.26 submitted by Farrell Building Company, for a special exception located at 90 Mount Pleasant Road for the construction of 200 rental apartments in ten buildings with associated driveways, parking, and clubhouse.

At the previous meeting on January 19, a vote was taken and the application was originally denied. Then a commissioner, who was in favor of the application, requested a re-vote. It resulted in another commissioner changing their vote, leading to the presumption that the application passed.

On February 2, Bloom announced, “The only people that will be talking about this here are the commission. There will be no [public] participation whatsoever.”

Town counsel Pat Sullivan from Cohen and Wolf said, “If you are interested in rescinding the vote, and starting over from what you did the last time … a motion to rescind will get you back to the point where then you would vote for what you want to do.”

Meadows made a motion to rescind the vote on Application 22.26 and all were in favor.

Cox then read into the record that Application 22.26 is “hereby found inconsistent with the plan of conservation and development and shall be disapproved for the following reason: That traffic report provided by the applicant did not provide suitable health and safety standards for the additional traffic.”

Meadows was confused and moved to amend the motion to the affirmative. After some back-and-forth, all were in favor of changing the wording.

As a result, Cox read what she said before, but this time that the application is “consistent” with all the above.

Bloom, Cox, and Ferguson voted against the application being approved. Meadows and Rich voted for it to be approved. As a result, the application was denied.

The next P&Z meeting will be Thursday, February 16, at 7 pm, in the Newtown Municipal Center.

Reporter Alissa Silber can be reached at alissa@thebee.com.