Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cannabis Microbusiness topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Owners of Quality High outline security, hiring and community commitments at Peekskill cannabis hearing
Summary
At a Oct. 15 public hearing, applicants for a cannabis microbusiness at 1698 Main Street described a 3,600‑sq‑ft cultivation/processing operation with no retail sales and detailed security plans; residents pressed them on community benefits, local hiring and safety; the hearing was closed with no final permit vote.
The common council heard from the applicants and residents at a public hearing on Oct. 15 on an application by Art of Flower Farm (doing business as Quality High) for a special-use permit to operate a cannabis microbusiness at 1698 Main Street.
Applicant Matthew Nicoletti described the business model as a small, vertically integrated microbusiness limited by state rules. "We are a new boutique cannabis micro business entering the recently legalized recreational cannabis market in Westchester County," Nicoletti said, adding that the facility would occupy 3,600 square feet, begin with two employees and have "absolutely no retail sales from our facility at 1698 Main Street and the general public is absolutely prohibited from entering our facility." Marco Manager, representing the project, and other representatives also described a closed-loop hydroponic grow, internal processing and plans to use third‑party processors for extraction during startup.
Residents raised questions about whether the business would support local, historically disenfranchised residents. "What is this business going to do for our community?" asked Valerie Eaton. Nicoletti and the owners said they planned to pursue local hiring and work with Peekskill nonprofits; Nicoletti said the company had begun outreach and planned a meeting with CHOP and other local organizations. City staff and the police and fire chiefs reviewed the application; the police reported no strong security objections and the building is already sprinklered, staff said. Applicants described security measures including masonry vestibules, CMU block walls around freight-elevator access, a monitored alarm system and key‑fob access; they also said they would follow state camera and monitoring rules.
Council members heard resident concerns about remaining building-permit questions from the fire and police departments and asked staff to provide the Q&A that the applicants had submitted to building and planning departments. After the exchange of questions and answers, the council moved, seconded and voted to close the public hearing; no final vote on the special-permit application was taken that night. The council asked staff to include the applicant responses in the record for further review before any permit decision.
