Community board committee seeks denial of Flintstone‑branded dispensary application at 388 West Street amid proximity and control concerns

Community Board 2’s Cannabis Licensing Committee voted in favor of recommending denial of an application by Elise Palka LLC (doing business as a Flintstone‑branded dispensary) for 388 West Street after members said unresolved questions about school proximity and who controls the business remained unanswered.

Chair Mar Fitzgerald, who presided over the committee, framed the discussion around two central legal issues: measurement of the 500‑foot school buffer and whether the social‑equity licensee would retain operational control. "The law says dispensaries cannot be within 500 feet of school grounds," Fitzgerald said, noting that the Office of Cannabis Management (OCM) had previously used a different measurement method and a court injunction has required the state to continue that method until at least February.

The City Club of New York, represented by Leila Logezico, urged the committee to deny or hold the application pending OCM verification. "We require a written confirmation from the Office of Cannabis Management that the site is more than 500 feet from school grounds under the governing standard and that the applicant’s ownership and true party‑in‑interest structure complies with the three‑license limits," Logezico said.

Applicant Elise Palka described herself as "the sole owner" of Elise Palka LLC and said she intends to run daily operations. "I am in full control of my store... everything every final decision is made by me," Palka said, adding she is a social‑equity card licensee and a small business owner seeking to provide local jobs and operate with community sensitivity. Consultant Jonathan Gutierrez, who said he owns The Cannabis Reserve in New Rochelle and has supported Palka, told the committee he will mentor operations.

Committee members pressed Palka on the lease and the brand‑licensing agreement, saying some contract clauses on the materials in the packet could create financial or operational dependence on outside parties. "Social equity licenses have to be controlled by the licensee," Fitzgerald said. Members asked if Flynn — the Flintstone brand founder frequently cited in the record — had financing or contractual provisions that would compromise Palka’s control; Palka acknowledged Flynn helped secure the lease and provided build‑out assistance but said she will be paid back under the brand licensing deal and "all decisions are gonna be made by me."

Neighbors and parents voiced strong opposition at the public‑comment portion. Diane Welton, a longtime neighborhood board member, said the branding and proximity worry parents walking children to nearby schools and parks. "Calling it Flintstone invites kids," Welton said. Jacob Solig, who lives nearby, told the committee he saw little clear local benefit beyond profit.

Committee members also sought operational specifics from the applicant: Palka proposed opening days/hours starting at 11 a.m. (applicant corrected an earlier transcription), with Fridays and Saturdays open until 2 a.m., about 15 staff total, and no on‑site consumption. Palka said the store will require ID at point of sale and would avoid child‑appealing exterior marketing; she also said deliveries would operate within the OCM’s 25‑mile limit for delivery providers.

On the legal background, the committee noted the OCM initially issued a proximity‑measurement guidance that was narrower; the guidance was later corrected to a 500‑foot straight‑line measure to school property, but litigation over the change has produced an injunction and public uncertainty. The committee stressed that verifying proximity and the true‑party‑in‑interest structure is OCM’s responsibility.

With these outstanding questions, the committee moved to a "deny unless withdrawal" posture: members asked staff to draft a resolution listing the specific items the applicant must resolve (proximity verification, clarifications on lease and brand license provisions, verifiable local outreach and adjacent business support) before the full board. The motion was made and seconded and recorded votes in the transcript show at least two "Aye" votes and at least two abstentions; the committee chair said the resolution and packet will be forwarded to the full board.

Next steps: the committee will forward the resolution and its supporting questions to the full board and include the committee’s request that the OCM provide written confirmation on the distance and ownership/true‑party‑in‑interest issues. The committee emphasized its role is advisory; Fitzgerald reiterated, "We raise questions... it’s up to the OCM to really look into those things."