Cheshire hearing reopens debate on allowing cannabis cultivation in industrial zones

A continued public hearing before the Cheshire Planning and Zoning Commission on Sept. 8 centered on a petition to amend the town's zoning regulations to permit licensed cannabis cultivation and micro-cultivation in the town's industrial zones under a special-permit process. Representatives for the applicant said the change would let property owners seek discretionary approval with strict security and odor-control conditions; residents and some commissioners raised concerns about smell, theft and public-safety burdens.

Ryan Hoyer, speaking for the applicant, said his team proposed allowing cultivation and micro-cultivation in the I-1 and I-2 zones subject to a special permit and state licensing oversight. "A special permit is a discretionary permit that this commission would have control over whether or not to issue," Hoyer told commissioners, adding the draft regulations would require odor-mitigation plans, security plans and a DCP (Department of Consumer Protection) license before operations could begin.

The application was presented on behalf of Brent Smith, owner of the greenhouse operation identified in the record as Hydroclonics (35 Diana Court). Smith told the commission he withdrew a prior application in 2024 and returned after changes in state law that he said allow social-equity cultivation licenses to partner with existing hemp producers. "We are asking to grow a legal agricultural product with medicinal properties in the state of Connecticut and ship it out of the town of Cheshire," Smith said in remarks read to the commission.

Why it matters: The change would remove cultivators from a list of uses the town currently prohibits and add them as special-permit uses in industrial zones. Proponents said a special-permit requirement would give the commission authority to review applicant security, odor mitigation and monitoring before any facility could operate. Opponents said current odor from hemp operations is already noticeable in parts of town and that converting to cannabis could increase security risks and policing costs.

Key details from the hearing - The draft text would add definitions in section 26 and new permitted uses in the zoning schedule (section 30, Schedule A), while most other cannabis-related uses would remain prohibited under section 31 of the zoning regulations. The proposal specifically ties operation to a required DCP license and to special-permit approval by the commission. (Ryan Hoyer, applicant representative) - The applicants suggested a 500-foot minimum separation from residential structures for new cultivation sites but said the commission could adjust that as it reviews individual special-permit applications. Hoyer: "The commission, because it's discretionary for any individual property coming before you for a special permit, you would be able to take into account separation distances, topography, heights of nearby buildings, and potentially increase that number if you felt it was necessary." (Ryan Hoyer) - Applicant's property: Brent Smith identified 35 Diana Court as the parcel he would use if the zone-change and a later special permit were approved; staff and commissioners noted the need to verify actual distances because some preexisting residential uses near industrial parcels are nonconforming and could be within 500 feet. (Brent Smith; staff) - State law change: The applicants cited Public Act 25-166 as the legislative change allowing social-equity cultivation licensees to partner with established hemp producers, which they said opens towns like Cheshire to cultivation where it was previously restricted. The applicant also said a provisional DCP license would be provided and a final license would be required within six months of zoning approval. (Ryan Hoyer) - Security and theft: Applicant counsel and the owner pointed to Department of Consumer Protection security standards and argued there have been no reported thefts from permitted cultivators in Connecticut since the DCP increased security rules. "There has not been a single theft from any one of them," Hoyer said, while acknowledging the town's enforcement and nuisance remedies would remain available. - Odor mitigation and monitoring: Commissioners and residents repeatedly pressed for measurable odor standards and enforceable monitoring. The applicants said technologies exist to dramatically reduce emissions (recirculation, filtration, ozone treatment, closed-loop HVAC or geothermal-linked systems) but that no technology can guarantee absolute zero leakage. The draft regulation would require an odor control plan and monitoring as part of the special-permit package. (Jeff Wenzel; Ryan Hoyer; Brent Smith) - Public comments: Multiple residents described current odors they attribute to hemp operations and worried those smells would persist or increase. Fred Schamberg told the commission: "I think if you approve it through a text amendment, there would be an open door or floodgates of a lot of cannabis in the community." Former police chief Bob Irving said security requirements could strain local police resources and warned that mitigation promises sometimes fail to materialize.

Decisions and next steps The commission kept the public hearing open and the applicants agreed to submit a revised, stricter draft of the proposed text responding to tonight's comments. Hoyer said the applicants would provide updated draft regulations and additional information (including DCP audit and enforcement data if available) ahead of the commission's next meeting. The commission requested clarified language on whether separation distances are measured building-to-building and asked applicants to tighten greenhouse/indoor-grow definitions to ensure security requirements apply to the kinds of structures proposed.

Context and constraints Under state law the Department of Consumer Protection issues cultivation licenses and enforces operational security and traceability requirements; local zoning cannot authorize retail sales if the town elects to prohibit retail, but local zoning controls where and whether cultivation facilities can locate. The applicants said the proposed change would not authorize retail or hybrid retail sales in Cheshire.

Ending The commission heard more than two hours of testimony and questions, both from commissioners and from a sizable public turnout. The hearing remains open; applicants said they would return with a revised draft and additional documentation for the commission's review.