Zoning Board Meeting – April 9, 2024 (Transcript states April 8, 2024)

The Stamford Zoning Board met on April 9, 2024, at 6:30 PM via Zoom to consider a special permit application (223-45) by Ayr Wellness Inc. to operate a hybrid cannabis retail facility at 417 Chapan Avenue. Chair David Stein presided. Board members present: Bill Morris, Jerry Bozak, Raquel Smith Anderson. Roseanne McManus was absent. Attorney Joseph Capalbo represented the applicant, with Tiana Hercules (partner/community outreach) and Tanisha Victor (VP Market Expansion) presenting. The meeting also included consent calendar items and administrative reviews. The public hearing drew extensive testimony, with over 136 people signed up to speak. The board did not vote; the application was continued to April 29, 2024.

Consent Calendar

• CSPR 1172 (Stamford Troy Softball): Approved with conditions from EPB, Engineering, and DEEP. (4-0)
• CSPR 1189 (Joseph Trapuzzi): Approved with conditions from EPB, Engineering, DEEP, and Harbor Management Commission. (4-0)
• CSPR 1190 (Yolanda Vilchez): Approved with conditions from EPB, Engineering, DEEP, and Harbor Management Commission. (4-0)
• Administrative Review – 980 Hope Street: Approved extension to April 25, 2025. (4-0)
• Administrative Review – 375 Fairfield Avenue: Approved landscape plan (5-foot pedestrian path, 4-foot amenity strip, 30 trees) meeting prior condition. (4-0)
• Agenda reordered to handle consent items first; motion to return to regular order approved.

Public Comments & Testimony

Opposition (majority of speakers)

• Paul Forensic (State’s Attorney, Stamford-Norwalk Judicial District): Opposed, citing child-centric facilities including Building One Community (B1C), Cummings Park, a karate studio, and the Child Guidance Center (serves abused children). Argued the location is inappropriate despite not opposing cannabis dispensaries generally.
• Ingrid Gillespie (Liberation Programs, Co-chair Stamford Prevention Council): Focused on public health; research shows location of cannabis stores influences youth intention to use, with risks to mental health, brain development, and addiction. Also noted federal illegality threatens immigrant families served by B1C.
• Michael Hyman (Board of Education member, Interfaith Council): Opposed, stating B1C is an educational center worthy of same protections as schools. Noted Board of Ed voted nearly unanimously to advise against the location.
• Representative Thomas Kaczynski (District 1): Described the area as “dense with child-centric facilities,” including non-public schools, preschools, a pediatric mental health clinic, and athletic fields. Noted Stanford Martial Arts is 215 feet away (accredited school). Residences are as close as 250 feet. Called applicant’s description “patently false and misleading.”
• John Leiden (attorney for B1C): Argued the board has discretion under Section 19C to deny based on public convenience and welfare. Presented evidence that B1C’s programs include summer school registration, curriculum designed with Stanford Public Schools, and a board member who is the superintendent. Also noted a martial arts school on site is accredited.
• Brendan Leiden (attorney): Raised technical concerns – traffic/parking analysis showed a drive-thru (applicant later clarified not part of application), no traffic management plan, and potential intent to abandon the drive-thru issue. Cited case law allowing denial on health/safety/welfare.
• Anka Badurina (Executive Director, B1C): B1C serves 4,700 immigrants annually, offers after-school programs for 100+ elementary students, partners with Stanford Public Schools for curriculum and summer school registration. Stated cannabis store would normalize use for children and jeopardize safety.
• Elinor Reimer (B1C Board Chair): Noted 33% of Stamford residents are foreign-born. Cannabis store could lead to stigmatization of immigrants; federal immigration law penalizes possession for immigrants.
• Loreli Peche (B1C Director): Described programs (STEAM, reading, math) where children walk past the proposed dispensary entrance. Noted summer school registration occurs at the building.
• Margarita Seligman (B1C Volunteer Director): 450 volunteers annually, half under 18; youth volunteers provided 2,600 hours in 2023. Parents would be afraid to send teens. Also noted federal immigration consequences for immigrants purchasing cannabis.
• Don Strait (B1C Consultant): Cited opposition from Attorney General William Tong, Board of Education, St. Mary’s Church, liberation programs, Domus, Family Centers, Charter Oak Communities, and Interfaith Alliance. Stated another dispensary is 1.1 miles away, so no public necessity.
• Father Faya (St. Mary’s Parish): Opposed, noting his Colombian background and the harm of drugs. Asked not to place a “drug dealer” in the east side.
• Maureen Boylan: Submitted 804 petition signatures, 150 letters, 394 from St. Mary’s. Noted multiple children’s services; questioned why four of five potential dispensaries are in east side. Cited declining cannabis sales.
• Mark Lingle (Interfaith Council): Asked for “spirit of the law” considering children’s programs.
• Terry Wood (former State Representative, B1C Board): Noted intent of cannabis legislation allows municipalities to restrict proximity to children; urged board to protect youth.
• Nicole Tarzia (former Board of Education Vice President): Support – argued cannabis has health benefits, FDA recommended rescheduling, and other harmful substances (alcohol, tobacco) are near schools. Criticized Board of Ed for opposing instead of focusing on student achievement.
• Additional opponents: Ellen Williams, Sonia Alcantarilla (B1C board, immigrant mother), Gina Calabresi (law professor – argued board has discretion under Irwin v. Litchfield; noted concentration of dispensaries in less advantaged neighborhoods), Bell Horovitz (past head of immigration task force), Mark Bonacera (educator), Elizabeth Alonso (parent of B1C student, spoke in Spanish), Vito Quivelli (Knights of Columbus – parking lot concerns, children’s programs), Soraya Hernandez (community volunteer), Barry Michelson (Stamford Neighborhoods Coalition – argued cannabis is illegal federally, supremacy clause), Mateo Gillian Cantaria (youth volunteer – 5 years, youth leader), Carla Escavar (Spanish – immigrants oppose normalization), Mary Summer (retired judge – trust issues, disproportionate impact on immigrants), David Cohen (B1C board – no evidence from applicant on health/safety/welfare), Jeannette Bielikowski (urged board to let courts decide on setbacks), Laura Jordan (Stamford Health – vulnerable population), Marcelo Gigli (youth volunteer), Helena Perez (B1C staff – urged applicant to withdraw), Cynthia Bowser (look out for children), Susan Adamson (B1C executive – trust and security concerns), Monika Twal (family-oriented location, young adults smoking), CeCara (safety, school bus stops near site).

Discussion Items

• Applicant Presentation: Attorney Capalbo argued the location meets all zoning conditions (Section 19 and special cannabis conditions). Stated no more than one dispensary per 25,000 residents (Stamford can have 5; 3 currently permitted). No other dispensary within 3,000 feet; no school within 1,000 feet as defined in regulations. The building is in CN and MG zones. Traffic study showed no adverse impact. Drive-thru eliminated. Applicant emphasized security protocols, cashless transactions (pin debit, CanPay), and social equity programs (pardons clinics, scholarships).
• Landlord Attorney David Laznick: Stated B1C’s lease does not allow a school; B1C’s use may be in violation. Questioned whether B1C qualifies as a school under zoning. Argued the school (if found) would be illegal without a special permit.
• Board Questions: Bill Morris asked about security enforcement and potential fines for non-compliance. Jerry Bozak questioned delivery hours (off-peak) and cannabis waste disposal. Raquel Smith Anderson asked about cashless transactions and banking. Chair Stein asked about parking issues raised by landlord; Laznick clarified any parking problem is from B1C’s use, not the dispensary. Morris pressed Laznick on why parking was raised only now.
• Legal Debate: Applicant cited Irwin v. Litchfield (244 Conn. 619) – board must approve if all standards met. Opponents argued board has discretion under Section 19C to deny based on health/safety/welfare. Brendan Leiden cited a case allowing denial on general considerations. Board member Smith Anderson requested legal interpretation on whether B1C is “administered by an accredited educational institution” given its partnership with Stanford Public Schools.

Key Outcomes

• No vote taken on Application 223-45 (Ayr Wellness). Continued to April 29, 2024, at 6:30 PM.
• Board requested legal interpretation from corporation counsel on the definition of “administered by an accredited educational institution” regarding B1C’s relationship with Stanford Public Schools.
• Applicant confirmed drive-thru will not be part of the application; that statement was made part of the record.
• All consent items approved unanimously (4-0).
• The board noted that any new applications for dispensaries will be accepted until 5 are permitted, but later applications may be denied by default if the cap is reached before a vote.
• Note: The transcript indicates the meeting occurred on April 8, 2024, but the provided metadata states April 9, 2024. This discrepancy is noted.