The board on Wednesday unanimously found the microbusiness dispensary proposed by Sanctuary Gardens LLC in a former bank building at 161 Church St. would have a significant adverse impact under State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR). The board went on to deny the site plan and special use permit for the project.
However, the proposed reuse of an existing commercial structure as permitted by city zoning laws likely should have been classified as a Type II action under SEQR. Such actions are automatically determined not to have a significant impact on the environment and are otherwise precluded from environmental review under Environmental Conservation Law.
Under the circumstances, the Planning Commission seemingly should not have gone through the SEQR process and instead should have considered the proposal as not having a significant adverse environmental impact.
Local governments are responsible for adhering to SEQR regulations issued by the state Department of Environmental Conservation. Although the state does not actively enforce the rules, actions that do not follow the regulations can be subject to legal challenges, which can lead to the invalidation of improper decisions.
Next steps were not immediately clear, but the situation could potentially lead the Planning Commission to rescind its actions on the application at a future meeting before resuming its project review. If that occurred, it would remain to be seen whether the board would ultimately reach a different conclusion on the proposal.
Mayor Michael Cinquanti on Thursday confirmed that he was made aware of the potential procedural issue and the matter was referred to Corporation Counsel Anthony Casale for review.
Sanctuary Garden, the proposed microbusiness cannabis dispensary, was met with concern from board members and neighborhood residents over its potentially harmful effect on surrounding homes, businesses and already heavy traffic at the 5 Corners intersection
Resident Cherylann Saul, who has long criticized traffic volume and raised related safety concerns on Church Street, said the business would only worsen those issues, citing the overwhelming crowds that visited Upstate Canna Co., a dispensary in Schenectady, when it opened in April 2023. Lines sprawled along upper Union Street for weeks initially.
“Once the word gets out, it’s going to be huge volumes and a parking nightmare,” Saul said of the business proposed in Amsterdam.
Its proximity to public transit stops and churches, as well as students frequently walking past the site to bus stops or nearby elementary schools, was another worry.
Matthew Ossenfort, former Montgomery County executive, on Wednesday raises concerns over the microbusiness cannabis dispensary proposed by Sanctuary Gardens LLC in a former bank building at 161 Church St. in Amsterdam.
“The government is trying to deter our young people from smoking, vaping and drugs. My way of thinking, cannabis is a gateway drug to something worse. Why would we want this anywhere in our city and what is this really doing to enhance us? Nothing,” said Jane Slezak, who owns the Slezak Petroleum Products gas station kitty corner from the site.
Residents urged the board to reject the proposal, saying the location wasn’t the right choice for a retail cannabis shop. Among them was Matthew Ossenfort, the former Montgomery County executive, who grew up in the neighborhood and supported plans for a cannabis cultivation facility on a portion of the former Beech-Nut plant site in Canajoharie during his tenure.
“I think we really need to be careful and think about, you know, what this property means. It’s an iconic property in the city of Amsterdam, and it’s an even more iconic property for the East Side residents,” Ossenfort said. “Personally, I don’t feel that that’s the best spot.”
Sanctuary Gardens LLC, owned by Josh McNary, has already secured a license and approval for the location from the state Office of Cannabis Management (OCM).
Uri Zucker, who would manage the business, said the high visibility of the site on a busy road was part of what made the location ideal.
Although not stated in the submitted project materials, Joe Rossi, a consultant for the applicants, stated the microbusiness dispensary would cultivate cannabis on-site and would only be able to sell its own products. He said it would therefore draw less traffic than other licensed dispensaries carrying goods from any number of state-licensed manufacturers.
“It’s going to be small. It’s going to certainly be less traffic than you had there as a bank,” Rossi said.
An estimated $500,000 would be invested into improvements to the property, but specific plans for building renovations and signage were not included in the application. Zucker indicated the owners and operators of the prospective business were interested in discussing those details with the city before making such decisions.
“Our aim is to enhance the local area with a classy and elegant exterior, reminiscent of upscale boutique retail stores, and to contribute positively to the community through our ethical business practices and community involvement,” the application states.
The dispensary is expected to create 22 jobs. Surveillance cameras and security systems would be installed inside and out. A secure entrance vestibule would be used to admit customers after checking identification. Staff would manage crowds during peak hours to control customer and vehicle traffic at the site, according to the application.
Repeated concerns over the business’ potential impact on traffic in an already busy area were unaddressed by the applicants. They noted only that the site has 35 parking spaces with the lot to be approached from Reid Street to prevent traffic from building up on Church Street. No statistics were provided on estimated vehicle trips the business would generate.
“I have an issue with the location because of the traffic and the risk that it bears on members of our community, especially the children we see walking to school,” board Chairwoman Elaine Santiago said.
Anecdotally, Rossi claimed that he didn’t see “a lot of traffic” in the area over the course of about 45 minutes while at the Dunkin’ across the street from the site. He did not specify when that was or the time of day.
“One thing we know is that it will have a negative impact on traffic and the congestion already in the area,” board member Sandy Griffin said. “I don’t even like driving up there.”
As concerns mounted, Rossi requested the board table the application until additional information on the proposal could be submitted to the board.
“There’s only a certain amount of things the local government can do. So, you might have to pass a law to prevent this from happening, because there’s laws protecting these operators,” Rossi said. “We might want to table this so this doesn’t become like a legal issue.”
Those comments were made prior to the procedural error on SEQR by the board and subsequent rejection of the overall application, which seemingly went unnoticed until after the meeting.
–
