Differences between hemp and marijuana licensing cannot, by themselves, justify blocking a proposed change in land use, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled unanimously in a decision involving a Suffield processing facility.

The court said zoning officials must examine what would actually occur at a property rather than relying primarily on how state or federal law classifies the products involved.

Connecticut courts consider three factors when determining whether a proposed operation can continue under an existing nonconforming use: its similarity to the previous use, whether the character of the work would change and whether it would have a substantially different effect on the surrounding neighborhood.

Applying those factors, the justices concluded that Lasa Extract LLC’s proposal to cultivate and process marijuana was not materially different from the hemp operation already conducted at 426 South Grand Street.

The company planned to use the same general equipment, plants and extraction process, with finished products shipped elsewhere. According to evidence in the case, one of the primary differences was that marijuana extract would require less coconut oil to dilute its THC concentration.

The court acknowledged that separate licensing systems “may be evidence” that a property’s use has changed, but said the distinction “is not determinative of the zoning inquiry.”

Lasa has processed hemp at the property since 2019. The location was previously used to grow and process tobacco before Suffield enacted its zoning regulations, allowing that activity to continue as a legal nonconforming use despite the property’s location in a residential zone.

After Lasa sought approval to operate as a marijuana micro-cultivator in 2022, Suffield’s zoning enforcement officer rejected the request. The town’s Zoning Board of Appeals upheld the denial in a 4-1 vote in February 2023.

A Superior Court judge overturned that decision in April 2024, finding that the town lacked substantial evidence that the proposed operation would alter the character of the property’s existing use. The state Supreme Court has now affirmed that judgment.

The ruling is limited to the circumstances surrounding Lasa’s proposal. The company did not plan to offer retail sales or allow marijuana consumption at the site, and the court emphasized that other operational changes could justify a different zoning decision.

Increased customer traffic, major alterations to production, new storage or transportation risks, or a greater effect on neighboring properties could all support denying a proposed change.

The decision clears Lasa’s local zoning hurdle but does not grant the company a state marijuana business license.