UPDATED: 11:50 A.M., Mar. 30: The letter and suggested regulations have been added at the end of the article.
At the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting one week ago (March 23), a group of Wilton residents asked the commission to strengthen the town’s regulations about pot. Specifically, they raised the question of tightening and adjusting town ordinances governing the sale of medical marijuana and paraphernalia used to smoke tobacco and pot products.
State senator Toni Boucher presented a letter to the commission proposing the regulation changes. There were nine other Wilton residents who joined her in signing the letter, including several additional town officials and notables—state representative Gail Lavielle; Board of Finance member/RTC Chair Al Alper; executive director of the Wilton Library Association Elaine Tai-Lauria; and president of the Library’s Board of Trustees Ann Duffy.
In the letter, they proposed two specific changes to current regulations: one that would reinstate and lengthen the moratorium on any applications, permits and development plans for all types of medical marijuana dispensaries or production facilities; and another that would increase zoning restrictions where retail facilities selling marijuana and related paraphernalia could locate.
The letter states that the writers first learned of Wilton’s current ordinances following an article in GOOD Morning Wilton about the possible opening of a retail store selling glass pipes and other items used to smoke tobacco and pot.
The retail rental space being eyed by the store’s owner was located in a building at 126 Old Ridgefield Rd., across the street from Wilton Library, in the Wilton Center retail zone. Reportedly, the store’s owner has since reconsidered opening in Wilton, but if he had moved forward the store would have been located very near Peachwave Frozen Yogurt, Smile Art Orthodontics, Village Market, Renaissance Beauty, and other businesses considered more ‘traditional’ and ‘family friendly.’
“As it stands now, excepting for some minor (in my opinion) regulations relative to placement, the town is exposed to having marijuana dispensaries and paraphernalia head shops populate the town. While I understand the need for that in some areas, aside from the fact that it’s still illegal on the federal level…I don’t believe that this town is a place where these types of facilities should be located,” Alper told GMW.com.
Where does Alper think they should be located?
“We certainly are close enough to more urban areas–and it’s not that they deserve to be put in an urban area and not a rural area–but the marketplace is a deeper marketplace in an urban area just by the nature of a population shift. Put it over there, where you have a much bigger audience than an 18,000 vs. a 90,000 resident town,” he said.
Regulations They Propose vs. Regulations Wilton Already Has
Wilton’s current regulations cover only land-use issues related to facilities that produce or dispense medical marijuana. The actual sale and production of medical pot is legal within the state; however, there are no current applications for such a facility to open in town.
Once the state made the dispensing of medical marijuana legal in 2012, some CT towns placed a moratorium on approving any permits or plans for facilities, until they were able to study and consider the state regulation. Wilton was one such town, placing a one-year moratorium on all activity in February 2014. The P&Z commissioners lifted that moratorium nine months later following a public hearing on the topic at P&Z’s meeting on Oct. 27 of last year–a hearing at which no members of the public attended to speak about it. On Nov. 10 the commission both lifted the moratorium and adopted regulations that would govern where medical marijuana facilities could operate within the town.
Boucher and Alper’s letter calls for a change of the zoning regulations, calling for a new moratorium on all medical marijuana facility applications, permits and development plans for a period of five years. They also suggest making the moratorium renew automatically unless P&Z decides otherwise.
According to Wilton’s town planner Bob Nerney, state courts do not look favorably on multiple extensions of a moratorium, a lengthy moratorium or an unending one.
But what about the additional changes suggested by the letter writers, of increasing restrictions on where medical marijuana facilities could locate? The changes would restrict such facilities from opening within 1,500 feet from schools, public recreation areas, public libraries, daycare centers and houses of worship; such facilities would also be prevented from opening within 5,000 feet from one another; and they could not open within 1,500 from a residential zone.
Nerney said the commission is aware of the limits of their responsibilities and considered carefully the regulations they have already created for the town.
“The chairman said we’d take a look at it and told [the letter writers] he appreciated their work. I think the commission feels that in terms of medicinal marijuana, that a lot of work went into it. It’s not something that you want to do in a hurry and throw something together. I think the issue of a paraphernalia stand-alone businesses is something you want to be careful about–I’m not aware of communities that regulate those types of businesses. There may be, but what will that then lead to though? It raises the philosophical question of when does a zoning issue evolve into a cultural issue? Are there other uses that may be culturally polarizing? What about a tattoo parlor? What about a satanic bookstore? What about a lingerie business beyond Victoria Secret?” Nerney explained.
Alper isn’t unaware of the irony of him being a self-described constitutional conservative promoting the idea of laws that would limit business in town.
“Simultaneously, there’s an equal right of the citizenry to oppose it. They generally oppose it through commerce, but you can also oppose it through regulatory construct. There’s certainly a dichotomy in my argument, I understand that. But if it were legal to sell heroin, would you want a heroin shop in town? Just because something is legal, doesn’t make it right,” Alper said, adding later, “The citizens have a right to regulate business within its [town] borders.”
Alper also argues that medical marijuana sales should be illegal in CT because it’s against Federal law.
“Technically it’s illegal at the federal level and therefore illegal for us. Simply because the state of CT chooses to ignore federal law doesn’t make it less illegal. I would encourage the P&Z to put a moratorium on both and force the state to litigate it,” he said.
In the letter they sent to P&Z, the residents acknowledge that they did not attend any earlier hearing or meetings when P&Z considered the medical marijuana topic.
“We regret that we did not participate at that time, but the results of your good work rendered a terrific first set of regulations. However, as events and circumstances evolve, this often requires that regulations evolve in concert so as to meet the changing climate. The more rapidly that climate changes the more quickly a re-evaluation would be considered to reflect it,” they wrote.
Following what they called “current events,” the letter writers said that they also see the state’s regulatory environment as “in flux” and “less uncertain.”
“Because of that, we feel that Wilton has an interest in re-visiting the regulations with the interest in expanding and enhancing the existing good work of your Commission and creating a local framework that will be stable over a longer period of time,” they wrote.
Independently, Alper uses a more forceful argument against allowing such sales in Wilton, and adds that he personally would like to see the town ordinances veer away from what the state allows in this instance. He says doing so could prompt a legal challenge to what CT has done in making medical marijuana legal.
“Let it get litigated. I think that Wilton, as it citizens, much like the state has done in ignoring the law of the Federal government which supersedes the state, the citizens of Wilton should ignore the law of the state of CT, and enact a regulatory framework that effectively prohibits the sale, use, possession, etc. Let the state litigate it with us, and let the us seek an appeal to the Federal level, and lets let this be heard once and for all,” Alper said.
