Skowhegan planning board tables appeal for medical cannabis grow at 667 Waterville Road

At its second February meeting the Skowhegan Planning Board voted to table an appeal from applicant Albert Kang seeking approval for a medical cannabis cultivation facility at 667 Waterville Road until the town’s police chief provides a security review.

Kang, who identified himself to the board as the applicant, told the board his tenant received approval from the state Office of Cannabis Policy (OCP) and began cultivating last year. He said early conversations with a previous code enforcement officer, Brian Bellaville, led him to believe the location was allowable under local rules. “We managed to talk to Brian Bellaville. At that time, he was the code enforcement officer. He says that depending on the location from the town, it is we can, grow medical marijuana,” Kang said.

The board’s concern centers on whether local site-plan requirements apply. Town staff and board members said the town’s site plan ordinance is triggered once an operation’s total business footprint exceeds 5,000 square feet. Kang and staff gave different but overlapping estimates of the site’s footprint; staff said the two primary grow buildings are larger than the 1,500-square-foot units allowed per OCP caregiver registrations and that, when combined with other structures, the property is above the 5,000-square-foot threshold. One staff estimate put the combined area at about 8,000–9,000 square feet.

Why this matters: a local site-plan review can require documentation the board found absent in the staff record (including a police-approved security plan and fire protection details). The staff findings of fact distributed before the meeting said the proposed development, as presented at the staff review, could place an undue burden on the town’s ability to provide public services and that security and fire protection improvements were “not designed to the satisfaction of these service providers.”

Kang described the practical and financial burdens he has already borne: during excavation for a mobile unit the team discovered a failed pipe and installed a new septic system “about almost $25,000” out of pocket; he told the board the project overall has cost “we have been, we have, we are almost $75,000 out of pocket.” Kang also said the fire department initially declined to sign off because a required lockbox was not installed; after buying the specified model the fire official inspected the site and “he said everything's fine.”

Town staff and counsel told the board that many of the fire-related concerns identified in the staff decision have been addressed. Counsel for the applicant told the board, “Every one of those concerns has been addressed and has now been approved by the chief.” Despite that, the staff package still listed the police chief as not having approved security and safety aspects, and the board said it needed a clear, written security plan (camera locations, locks, alarm/monitoring details) and direct input from the police chief before it could complete its review.

The board also discussed a possible change to NFPA (fire code) requirements that could require commercial-grade sprinklers for certain occupancies if the code change is adopted; the fire official warned that an unfunded retrofit could impose “substantial cost” on the operator if that rule is enacted later.

Procedure and next steps: Speaker 2 moved to table the appeal to give staff, the applicant and the police chief time to produce the security plan and related documentation; the motion was seconded and approved. The board set the matter to return at its March meeting (the board identified March 3 as the next meeting date). The applicant warned that his tenant’s OCP license expires April 1 and urged that the board expedite review so the state license would not lapse.

The board also reviewed other routine items, heard a brief public-comment question about a local walkway, and discussed circulating a solar-ordinance survey for public review. The planning board adjourned following those items.

What was not decided: The board did not grant or deny the appeal at this meeting; it tabled the item to obtain a written police-security review and to confirm whether additional fire-protection requirements (including possible sprinkler requirements tied to future code changes) must be met.