An application review for a site plan and special use permit for a potential cannabis dispensary in the Village of New Paltz last week became a greater discussion about policy, particularly as it relates to traffic and the shared use of data.
The latest, but perhaps not the last, application for a cannabis dispensary is on a property located at 98 North Chestnut Street, formerly a Stewart’s Shop on a nearly one-acre parcel of land. The existing 2,365 square-foot building was sold for $550,000 in September 2022, down from its initial asking price of $650,000. The application was submitted by New Paltz Bus Depot, LLC, with Radi Serdah its sole member cited in the Planning Board’s files.
According to the applicant, the dispensary business would make use of the existing building with minor modifications. The bulk of the tentative internal plan is devoted to a sales floor, with a 36-square-foot bathroom and a 25-square-foot storage space. The plan also includes 24 parking spaces, a landscaping plan generated by Stewart’s in 2009.
The application review took place during a meeting of the Village of New Paltz Planning Board on Tuesday, February 21, and with three cannabis dispensaries already having come up for review over the past several months, there was a sense of familiarity to much of the proceedings. That familiarity led to the suggestion from the applicant that a traffic mitigation study conducted by a previous nearby applicant be considered in place of a freshly generated study, which then led to a discussion about policy.
The New York State Cannabis Board has already begun considering a range of licenses for cultivators, processors and distributors of legal marijuana, and while cannabis use is now legal across New York State, local municipalities had until December 31, 2021 to determine whether they would allow retail and/or consumption businesses to operate within their boundaries. Disallowing them would also result in the potential loss of significant sales tax revenues.
According to the Rockefeller Institute of Government, of the 24 municipalities in Ulster County, only five — the towns of Esopus, Plattekill, Saugerties, Shawangunk and Wawarsing — opted out of allowing dispensaries. All five also opted out of allowing cannabis consumption businesses to operate, along with the towns of Gardiner, Kingston and Ulster.
While the Cannabis Board has yet to grant any permits locally, there is currently the potential for four to open within the village, including three along a stretch of North Chestnut Street vying to become an unofficial Cannabis Row.
Previously before the Village Planning Board, Farmer’s Choice, LLC proposed “The Barn” for 1 Old Route 299, which would include 3,000-square feet of first floor retail space and 2,000-square feet of first floor storage. Above the storage would be 2,000-square feet of office space. The plans also include a parking lot with 35 spaces, with at least two electric vehicle charging stations. A six-foot high wood fence is also planned for the rear of the property.
Also under review is a potential dispensary at Zero Place, a mixed-use building at 87 North Chestnut Street. Net-Zero Development, LLC is seeking approval for approximately 4,000 square-feet of retail space, plus an additional 800 square-feet of office and storage space. The property is listed in the Neighborhood Business Residential zone, and in addition to ground floor retail space, also has 25 two-bedroom and 21 one-bedroom units across three stories.
Finally, Katherine Stevens, owner of Lila Luckie’s, LLC is seeking approval for a dispensary at 88 North Chestnut Street, with possible parking extended to 92 North Chestnut.
During the February 21 discussion about the New Paltz Bus Depot, LLC application, members of the Planning Board expressed uncertainty about whether it would be appropriate to use a traffic and mitigation study prepared by another dispensary applicant, even if it’s for the same type of business.
“I think I heard it said that no applicant that you know of has tried to do this, take another applicant’s study and just use it for their approvals,” said Terry Dolan, an alternate member of the Board. “We don’t own the study. I think we need to go back to the owner of the study and ask them if it’s OK for us to use it.”
Dolan added that using a previously-generated Stewart’s traffic study for the same property might also not make sense for a dispensary as they’re different kinds of businesses, particularly as many customers visiting the former convenience store were there for gas and never entered the building.
“My point is, it is different,” Dolan said. “It’s a retail space but it is different. It just seems to me that they should do a traffic and parking analysis just like everybody else and let our consultants review it.”
Planning Board Chairman John Litton said he wasn’t clear on the legalities of using another traffic study, even if permission was granted.
“I don’t know whether it’s an actual requirement by law but it is something that we have asked for,” he said. “I don’t know whether it’s equitable or proper to say ‘can I use this data that was generated by other people or not’.”
The applicant bristled at the request for a traffic mitigation plan, particularly with so many variables about the number of dispensaries potentially opening not only in the Village of New Paltz, but also across the region. They also questioned whether Planning Board members’ visits to and studies of dispensaries in other states to review traffic mitigation shortly after those businesses had opened would necessarily reflect on what might happen on North Chestnut.
“Half of the population in this town is students and they’re all underage, and they all come around with fake ID’s,” said Serdah. “They’re not going to go to the dispensary. So you’re not going to get that surge.”
Board members said that it was up to the applicant whether to comply with the request for a traffic mitigation plan, which for the proposed dispensary at Zero Place included appointment-only admission during the first few weeks of operation.
“You can decide not to do it…But we’ve seen it in multiple states and heard that it’s a likely scenario,” said Board member Rich Souto. “I think the amount of time spent refusing to do a mitigation plan could be well dedicated to the simple idea of how you’re going to manage traffic.”
Litton agreed.
“All we’re asking is how would potential traffic be managed so that it would not create backups?” Litton said. “We’re not making it a requirement that you go by that plan, but if you have that plan in place, it may make things run more smoothly and may make the special use permit a little easier to go through.”
Join the family! 
