Background
Lasa Extract operated a hemp cultivation and processing business in a large building on residentially zoned property in Suffield. The property historically had been used for tobacco farming and processing before the town adopted zoning regulations, making that historic use a protected legal nonconforming use. In 2019, the town’s zoning enforcement officer determined that hemp cultivation and processing could continue under that nonconforming use.
After Connecticut legalized adult-use cannabis, Lasa sought to operate as a cannabis microcultivator. It proposed to use the same building, equipment, cultivation and extraction process, and off-site shipment model; the material difference was that it would use less coconut oil to dilute the extract, leaving a THC concentration high enough to qualify as cannabis rather than hemp. The zoning officer and zoning board rejected the request based primarily on hemp’s and cannabis’ separate statutory definitions and licensing regimes. The Superior Court sustained Lasa’s appeal.
The Court’s Holding
The Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed. A different state licensing or regulatory scheme is relevant evidence in deciding whether a proposed activity impermissibly expands a legal nonconforming use, but it is not dispositive. The governing inquiry remains fact-specific and compares the original and proposed uses’ purpose, nature, kind, character, and neighborhood effects under the factors stated in Zachs v. Zoning Board of Appeals.
Here, the administrative record did not contain substantial evidence that cannabis cultivation and processing would change the character of the property’s use. Lasa would use the same plant, facility, equipment, and production process, make no retail sales on site, and produce no identified neighborhood effects. The higher THC concentration and separate license alone did not establish an unlawful expansion of the nonconforming use.
Key Takeaways
- Separate licensing regimes do not automatically establish a prohibited change in a nonconforming use.
- Zoning authorities must apply the fact-intensive Zachs analysis and develop evidence concerning the proposed use’s actual character and effects.
- The decision is limited to this record and does not create a general right to convert any hemp-related use into a cannabis use.
Why It Matters
The ruling rejects a bright-line zoning rule based solely on how the state licenses two activities. Municipalities challenging a shift from hemp to cannabis production must show that the particular proposed activity changes the use’s nature, character, or impact on its neighborhood.
The court also emphasized that evidence of retail activity, changed equipment or production methods, altered storage or shipment risks, or neighborhood impacts could produce a different result.