Public weighs in on Purple Plains license renewal

By THANE GRAUEL

The town and the people of Pound Ridge have the opportunity to comment on a state license renewal for SMMB Inc., which runs the Purple Plains recreational cannabis dispensary. A public hearing took place on Tuesday to gather input.

Several people spoke. One of them,  John Nathan, a lawyer already suing the town over its handling of the cannabis issue, questioned whether the rules were followed when SMMB filed its original application.

The Town Board, which met without Supervisor Kevin Hansan, listened to the comments but did not take a stand of its own. Whether it will eventually endorse the renewal, oppose it, or take no action — which is one of the options offered by the New York State Cannabis Control Board — remains to be seen.

Deputy Supervisor Diane Briggs said when opening the hearing that the town can report on the comments made at the hearing to the state, “however, the town is not obliged to report on the input it received.”

She said the public could submit comments directly to the state by emailing info@cannabis.ny.gov.

Purple Plains opened on Westchester Avenue in April 2024. Many were upset because the business was able to open after the Town Board held no hearings to gather public input on whether it  should opt out of the state’s new rules allowing recreational retail dispensaries. The other neighboring municipalities held such hearings.

Nathan began the public comments by saying he didn’t care one way or the other about the cannabis issue, “I only care about one issue and that’s the law — was the law followed.”

He said he wasn’t there to discuss the issues addressed in his lawsuit against the town, which alleged the board’s decision not to opt out of allowing cannabis dispensaries was made outside of public view and in violation of open meetings laws. (A judge ruled against his case, but Nathan has appealed). 

He said he  was concerned instead whether SMMB “followed the law when they submitted their application back in 2022.” He said that if it didn’t, any citizen had the right to petition the state to revoke the license. “And if they didn’t follow the law back in 2022, it infects their right to get a … renewal of a license,” Nathan said.

He said SMMB was among the first outfits to obtain a license from the state because it applied under a program that gives priority to those who meet two conditions: having a prior conviction for a marijuana offense, and that person with the prior conviction owning 51% of the business.

Nathan said he had been trying for two years to obtain the application papers, “which would tell us whether or not they played by the rules. We’ve never been able to get them.”

Nathan said published stories identified three people involved in SMMB, a father, his daughter, and her fiance. The father is Jack Mortell, his daughter is Sophia Mortell, and her fiance is Mark Buzzetto.

“Until December, nobody knew, except SMMB, who was the person who had the conviction,” he said. However, an article in Bedford & New Canaan Magazine included an interview with the fiance, “and he disclosed for the first time on the public record that he’s the one who had the conviction,” Nathan said.

“Fine,” Nathan told the board. “But did he own 51% of SMMB? I can tell you after months of work on this, there is no evidence in the public record which discloses that he owns 51%, or more. All of the evidence that I have found shows that he didn’t own it.”

He said he planned to petition the Cannabis Control Board “to institute a proceeding to investigate this and revoke the license,” Nathan said.

“If they did the right thing and he has 51%, that’s the end of it,” he said. “But if it turns out that he didn’t, then that license should be revoked.”

Nicholas Cianciola Sr. brought up the board’s original decision on the cannabis opt-out opportunity.

“Why hold a hearing now when one was not needed, but not when it would have been in the best interest of the constituents who elected this board to seek and represent the voice of the people?” he asked. “The most plausible explanation is that the board wishes to publicly endorse the renewal process.”

Town Board member Dan Paschkes took issue with Cianciola’s characterization of the board’s actions previously, and responded.

“The purpose for tonight’s open hearing is specifically to try to do better at what we could have done better, and probably should have done better the first time around which is to seek public input because the Town Board has the opportunity to comment to the state as to whether we have an opinion one way or the other or not,” Pashkes said. “This is our effort to reach out to the community,” he said, adding, “we thought it best to seek public input.”

John McCown said that in light of Nathan’s comments, the question for him was simple.

“Does the rule of law matter?” he asked. “I think this board would have a strong view if they found out that someone built a house without getting a building permit. I don’t think there’d be any debate that, is that right or wrong?”

“In my view it would be absolutely reckless for this board to recommend a license be renewed,” McCown said.

Alex Goldfarb noted that the potency of the legally raised cannabis can be much higher than what was available illegally and before it was legalized, saying it was something the board might want to consider.

No one from SMMB spoke.