By Dawn De Busk

Staff Writer

CASCO — Landrace Cannabis Co. has retail stores in Woolwich, Hollis, Sanford and Portland.

The family-owned company would like to open its next retail store along Route 302 in Casco, according to co-owner Lindsay Holden.

The company plans to lease an existing building, which was formerly a residential dwelling, but has been unoccupied for a number of years. The company will lease both the building and the property for parking. The lot has frontage on Rt. 302. Currently, the lot also has access to Red Mill Lane, which runs perpendicular to Rt. 302.

On Monday, a public hearing was held for the proposed adult-use recreational marijuana retail store. The hearing took place before the Casco Planning Board.

During the meeting, the board reviewed the performance standards for any business. Next, the board reviewed the performance standards specifically for a recreational marijuana-based businesses. The Town of Casco passed its Recreational-Use Marijuana Ordinance in 2022.

In the end, the board tabled making any final decision. The board decided to wait until the Dec. 11 meeting, after the Findings of Fact draft has been prepared. Doing things in this order will make it easier to make any corrections to the Findings of Fact at the same time, the town attorney explained.

Lindsay Holden, who was accompanied by her brother and business partner Tyler Holden, gave a quick presentation about the business.

“We’ve been in business for three years in the adult-use market. We have a great team of well-paid employees. We take pride in educating the consumer about products,”

The adult-use retail storefront will be safe and secure and not draw crime to the area, she said. Most people who live in places surrounding the retail stores find Landrace Cannabis to be a good neighbor, she said.

“We look forward to joining the Casco community,” she said. 

Throughout the meeting, one nearby property-owner Stephen Chute challenged the process. About midway into the discussion, he stepped to the microphone.

“The applicant keeps filling in the gaps. I would like a comment on that Mr. Chairman. You are having to search through other documents to augment the application. If it is not in the application, it is not here,” Chute said.

The board’s discussion with the applicant included signage, number of entrances, and applying for change of use permit.

The change of use was bought up by Nguyen.

“Route 302 in Casco is our only commercial land. We are going to be seeing a lot of people asking for change of use, where our ordinance say for Change-of-Use needs to meet the current standards, such as the setbacks,” he said.

Prior to being a vacant property, an insurance business and a trucking office operated from the building, an audience member said.

The Holdens did not think it should be considered a change of use since small businesses have called the building home in the past.

“It is change of use, as it pertains to the ordinance. The burden of proof is on the applicant,” Chairman McAllister said. “It is technically a change of use.”

Early on in the conversation, board member Tuan Nguyen asked about the sign being in the correct spot. The sign had been moved since the board’s site walk but it might be in the Maine Department of Transportation’s right-of-way, he said. 

“The sign was deeded to be there when the Route 302 corridor was widened. My concern is that the signpost can be up to the right-of-way, but not into the ROW. The DOT ROW extends to the edge of pavement into the lawn,” Nguyen said.

Lindsay Holden said when she applied for a sign permit, the code department did not mention that rule.

“A new sign has to be outside of the ROW. I don’t know about the existing signs,” Casco Code Enforcement John Wiesemann said. 

Holden claimed that the CEO “would be the one to issue the sign permit.”

Casco Chairman Ryan McAllister clarified.

“It is part of the site plan review — to review what the sign looks like as well as the placement,” he said. 

Later on, there was quite a bit of discussion about limiting curb cuts to one — which is one of the requirements in the town’s ordinance.

“I have concerns about the curb cut and the fact that we don’t have driveway permit application or approval from DOT. Commercial properties are to have a single curb cut on the primary road that they are putting frontage on. That would be 302,” McAllister said. “The concern is that [Red Mill Lane] is a road primarily used by commercial trucks, if you pull out in anything less than a truck, curb cut don’t have the line of sight.”

Applicant Tyler Holden said, “Isn’t it up to the driver to make safe decisions?”

His sister Lindsay Holden said, “From a safety standpoint, it makes sense to have two entrances.”

Board member Nguyen addressed safety, too.

“I feel like Red Mill is the safer road. The town has historically forced businesses to use one road. If you are putting your frontage on Route 302, that’s the road you’re supposed to use,” he said.

Town Attorney Ben McCall provided his interpretation.

“I don’t think it states if you can have a curb cut on another road,” McCall began. “To be a legal lot, you have to demonstrate a frontage on one road. It is worth pointing out the other curb cut is there. It is ultimately up to planning board to determine the additional curb cut on Red Mill Road.”

The board voted, 3-1, with McAllister opposing, to approve the second entrance on Red Mill Lane.