The Connecticut Supreme Court has cleared the way for a Suffield hemp processor to grow and process cannabis at a former tobacco property, ruling that the town cannot block the change in production based solely on the different state licensing and regulatory regimes for hemp and cannabis.
The unanimous decision, written by Justice Gregory T. D’Auria, affirms a Superior Court ruling in favor of Lasa Extract LLC and property owner The Crosswalk LLC. Both are controlled by Rick Sotil, a former world champion jai alai player who has operated a hemp extraction business at 426 South Grand St. since 2019.
The property is a 0.9-acre lot with a 23,256-square-foot building in a residential zone. It was used to farm and process tobacco before Suffield adopted zoning rules, making the use a legal nonconformity. In 2019, the town’s zoning enforcement officer determined that hemp production could continue as a nonconforming use.
But when Lasa sought permission in 2022 to operate as a cannabis micro-cultivator, the same officer rejected the request, citing the different state definitions and licensing programs for hemp and cannabis.
“If cannabis/marijuana, a hallucinatory processing was to be considered at that time, it would not have been approved by this office,” the zoning officer wrote.
The Zoning Board of Appeals upheld the decision 4-1.
The Supreme Court said the board put too much weight on the licensing distinction without considering whether the proposed cannabis operation would actually change the character of the property’s existing use.
Under Connecticut’s three-factor test for nonconforming uses, towns must consider how closely the proposed use reflects the original use, differences in the character and nature of the two uses, and whether the proposed activity would have a substantially different effect on the surrounding neighborhood.
A difference in licensing “may be evidence” of a change in character, the court said, “but it is not determinative of the zoning inquiry.”
In Lasa’s case, the court found few meaningful differences between the existing hemp operation and proposed cannabis production.
The only thing that would change is the amount of coconut oil used to dilute the extract. Lasa would cultivate the same plants, use the same equipment and process, and ship the finished product off-site, just as it does with hemp.
Producing cannabis would require less coconut oil, the court said, but would not otherwise change the operation.
The court acknowledged that cannabis and hemp are subject to different state and federal regulations because of their different THC concentrations. But it said those regulatory differences do not automatically establish a change in the character of a property’s use.
The board had warned the ruling would create a “de facto constitutional ‘if hemp, then cannabis’ property right.” The court disagreed, noting that Lasa itself conceded on-site retail sales would likely have doomed its case.
Towns remain free to block similar changes when they can show a material difference in the use of a property, the court said. That could include retail sales or consumption on-site, significant changes to a building or production process, or new risks associated with storing or shipping the product.
“In the present case,” the court wrote, “no such evidence was presented.”
Suffield’s zoning regulations allow cannabis establishments in industrial zones with a special permit and prohibit them within 200 feet of a residential zone.
