| Joanne Cole |
A legal opinion from the Town’s attorney was front-and-center on Tuesday, as the Planning Board considered the status of Scott Rogers’s proposed commercial medical cannabis grow facility at 934 Lewiston Road (Route 100). Rogers would convert an existing residence on 1.8-acres in the Residential B-1 district (Map 18 Lot 20).
The August 15 letter from attorney Kristin Collins analyzed the property’s use history against applicable provisions of the zoning ordinance. The verdict? The board “must deny the new application,” Collins advised.
The reasoning: a grow operation (considered a “commercial greenhouse” use) needs to be on five acres in the RB-1 district. This one is less than two acres. Maybe it qualifies for something akin to grandfathered status that can now be changed? Also no, because its prior nonconforming-but-legal use as an auto repair garage didn’t continue unbroken to the present.
Instead, the use changed in 2015 (welding/fabrication, considered a “light manufacturing” use) without required Planning Board approval. The then-Code Enforcement Officer approved the 2015 change in use but lacked the legal authority, Collins said; approval needed to come from the board.
At the October 3 meeting, Town Planner Kathy Tombarelli briefly recapped the lawyer’s conclusions for the board. They had received the letter in the agenda packet ahead of time (pp.8-9). At the meeting they treated it as definitive.
Neither owner Scott Rogers nor his local representative Joe Pugh was present to hear the news. Tombarelli said she had previously informed them of counsel’s opinion and also what uses could happen at that location.
“I guess that project is dead or on hold?” acting chair Erik Hargreaves asked. The project was never a formal application, Tombarelli said, so “there’s nothing to remove from the table” or action for the board to take this point. Next steps are up to Rogers and Pugh.
Like the members of the board and the then-Planner, Rogers and Pugh had proceeded since October 2022 on the assumption that a grow facility/commercial greenhouse was permitted in that location and zone. They discussed water, septic, buffers, odor control and the like in multiple meetings.
However, in July it was discovered that the presumed zoning district was in fact incorrect, throwing the permissibility of the project into doubt. The board paused their review at that point and requested the legal opinion that apparently confirmed those doubts.
Possible ordinance revisions. With the Lewiston Road grow facility agenda item addressed, the board moved on to hear updates from Tombarelli on zoning matters in the works at the Land Management Planning Committee. These involve new or revised ordinances that would ultimately be jointly reviewed with the Planning Board and, if approved in time, might go before voters at Town Meeting in May.
Among the ordinances and topics:
— On a cannabis ordinance, Tombarelli said she had brought definitions for LMPC to review. They in turn asked her to draft an ordinance. It will align with community survey results, including a prohibition on retail operations, she said. Any ordinance will also need to take into account existing operations that were approved as commercial greenhouses.
— On LD 2003, the law that requires municipalities to revise their zoning to allow denser development and loosen restrictions on accessory dwelling units, Tombarelli plans a Zoom session soon with the town attorney to review LMPC’s revisions so far and to clarify how the law might apply to old subdivisions and existing covenants.
Tombarelli told the board she had given the attorney direction that “New Gloucester was looking to be as restrictive as possible,” and had heard back that some towns may be banding together to push back against LD 2003 but no details. Tombarelli will know more soon.
— On the Upper Village, Tombarelli said wetlands delineations and soil surveys are in the works for Town parcels there, eight acres in all, to determine how much usable acreage there is and how many units it can support. That in turn will inform any Town decision to sell or to work with a developer. There’s interest in senior housing, group living or perhaps assisted living there, she said, but current zoning may limit the number of allowable beds. What uses square with the Comprehensive Plan and the Upper Village Plan are also key questions.
— A more technical topic that originated within the Planning Board concerns how to handle amendments to plans previously approved by the board. The ordinance is currently silent on the matter, as the board discovered earlier this year, resulting in considerable hoop-jumping by a would-be amender. The goal would be to make an amendment process clear and, members hope, easier.
Conversation centered on what kinds of proposed changes should have to come back for Planning Board review, and which can simply go to the Code Officer? What should be considered “minor” or “de minimus”? What documentation should be required? The checklist of required submissions for a new project is lengthy, members agreed.
The discussion reached no conclusions but offered up plenty of considerations for Planner Tombarelli to take back to the drawing board.
To view video of the Planning Board’s October 3 meeting, click here. Find links to meeting agendas and related documents on the Planning Board page at this link.
