Norwalk, CT’s First Cannabis Store Faces Solar Panel Dilemma: Tree Shade and Low ROI Make Compliance Hard

Well-beingNorwalk’s first marijuana dispensary is facing a solar power dilemma. The company is asking the city’s Planning and Zoning Commission to waive a requirement to install solar panels at its 191 Main St. location, citing feasibility issues that could hurt its bottom line. The store, which opened in March 2024, initially received a special permit in 2023, contingent on installing solar panels on its roof and covered parking lot or providing a feasibility report explaining why it couldn’t meet the requirements, according to CT Insider.

Before the Commission meeting on September 5, Fine Fettle’s COO Ben Zacks sent calculations that underscore the challenges. According to Zachs, rooftop solar panels aren’t cost-effective for the site because shading from a nearby tree significantly reduces potential energy production. “It’s not a philosophical issue, it’s a question of the feasibility of having a small roof with a tree blocking it and not wanting to spend money on something that’s going to take longer to pay off than our rent,” Zachs explained during the meeting.

Solar installation feasibility and financial obstacles

Fine Fettle’s request stems from concerns that the investment required for the solar installation would not provide sufficient financial returns over the 10-year lease period for the property. The company’s estimates, based on assessments from solar companies, suggest that the rooftop solar panels will generate only about 6,500 kWh per year — far below the National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s (NREL) projection of more than 49,000 kWh. The discrepancy is largely attributed to shading from a tree that Fine Fettle does not own and cannot remove.

CTEC SolarThe Bloomfield-based company that provided the Fine Fettle quote also advised against proceeding with the project. “We do not advise proceeding with this project because Fine Fettle’s consumption is significantly greater (over 6,500 kWh) and the financial benefits do not align,” said CTEC’s owner and president Mickey Toro in a letter attached to the committee note.

Fine Fettle’s internal calculations, using CTEC data, estimate a return on investment (ROI) of just 2.4%, with costs offset over 40 years—far longer than the company’s current lease term. Another solar company, Teleonrejected the project outright, citing a similarly low return on investment (ROI) of 2.9%.

Parking dilemma

In addition to the roof challenges, the committee suggested that Fine Fettle explore installing solar panels on an adjacent parking lot that is owned by the same landlord. But Zachs expressed concerns about losing valuable parking spaces. “We typically have about nine to 11 of our 74 hours a week that we’re open, and there’s people milling around,” he said, emphasizing the operational impact of reducing parking capacity.

The commission previously approved a landscaping feature that would replace two parking spaces, but Zachs requested that the condition be waived, citing current parking demand.

The way forward

While Fine Fettle isn’t opposed to solar — the company uses solar at other locations in Connecticut — it argues that the Main St. site poses unique challenges that make a solar installation financially and operationally impractical. Still, the commission’s memo indicated that the company’s calculations did not fully meet the feasibility test, which requires a comprehensive summary of the return on investment, including details on cost, production and payback.

Cover image created using artificial intelligence