The Connecticut Supreme Court upheld a previous court ruling allowing Lasa Extract LLC, owned by Suffield resident Ricardo Sotil, to grow and process cannabis at a former tobacco processing site. Sotil’s property was previously approved for the processing of hemp, but the Town denied him permission to process cannabis.

“The trial court correctly concluded that the proposed use of the plaintiffs’ property for cannabis cultivation and processing constituted a continuation of the property’s preexisting, legal nonconforming use under the circumstances of this case, and, accordingly, this court affirmed the trial court’s judgment,” the decision reads.

In October 2022, Sotil requested that Suffield’s zoning enforcement officer determine the use of his property at 426 South Grand Street for cannabis cultivation as a “legal continuation of a pre-existing nonconforming use.” Sotil’s property, formerly used to cultivate tobacco, had already been approved for hemp cultivation in 2019. Hemp comes from the same plant as cannabis, differing only in the extent to which they are processed. Despite this fact, the town denied his request, and Suffield’s Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) denied his appeal in 2023 in a 4-1 vote.

The various ZBA commissioners denied Sotil’s appeal because there was “a clear difference between how the state and federal government regulate cannabis as opposed to hemp, that the change would expand an already non-conforming use, and that approving the application would undermine the town’s Planning and Zoning Commission. In March 2023, Sotil took the ZBA to court over the issue, and the court ruled in his favor in December 2023.

“The court concludes that the administrative record does not contain substantial evidence that cultivating and processing cannabis on the property would change the character of the existing nonconforming use,” ruled Judge Daniel Klau. “As a matter of law, on the facts of this case, the different legal treatment of hemp and cannabis is not substantial evidence of a change in character of the use.”

Suffield’s ZBA appealed the ruling on April 30, 2024, arguing that the Superior Court “failed to recognize the importance of hemp and marijuana’s separate regulatory regimes in both state and local law” when deciding the case. The Supreme Court affirmed that these regulatory distinctions are “relevant to but not determinative of” whether a proposed use can be considered an extension of an existing non-conforming use.

The Connecticut Supreme Court relied on the standards set by Zachs v. Zoning Board of Appeals to determine whether Sotil’s proposed use, cannabis cultivation, should be considered an extension of the already approved non-conforming use, hemp cultivation. In Zachs, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that courts and municipalities should consider whether the proposed use “reflects the nature and purpose of the original use,” whether there are any differences in “character, nature and kind of use,” and whether the proposed use will create a “substantial difference in effect” upon the neighborhood when making these determinations.

The Supreme Court argued that because Sotil would be using the same equipment, on the same property, to do essentially the same work as before, with the only difference being the regulatory status and intended use of the finished product, his proposal should have been granted.

“There is no additional evidence in the record, presented by the parties, that the proposed cultivation and processing of cannabis or its end product would change the existing property, equipment, process, or effect on the neighborhood, nor is there evidence of opposition from neighboring property owners regarding the proposed change,” ruled the Supreme Court. “Under the particular circumstances, therefore, in which the only record evidence of a change in the character of the property’s use is a difference in state regulatory schemes, we agree with the trial court that the administrative record does not contain substantial evidence of a change in the character of the property’s use.”

Sotil, who has faced extensive opposition from town officials regarding the use of his property before his suit, believes town officials acted against him out of racial prejudice.

“What the town of Suffield did was wrong,” said Sotil. “Not one person in town opposed it. It’s time that the town officials get called out for discriminating against minorities.”

Republish This Story

Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.