Residents urge stricter cannabis zoning, raise odor and lighting concerns at public forum

Dozens of Pine County residents used the board’s public forum to press commissioners to revise a draft cannabis zoning ordinance they say leaves gaps that could allow large greenhouse operations near homes.

Those speaking identified problems with how the draft distinguishes facility size, treats odors and lighting, and applies setbacks. John De Grey, a Royalton Township resident, said he could not find a provision covering a 30,000-square-foot greenhouse and said, “all these rules should be applied to everyone” so odors cannot “dissipate outside the property line.”

The speakers said the version of the ordinance under consideration appears to be less protective of neighbors than an earlier draft that followed Minnesota guidance and the Minnesota Association of Counties. Pastor Joe Reed of Royalton urged commissioners to consider “the reality that there is a moral dimension to this.” Denise Weiss, also of Royalton, said the county’s first draft “really did protect residents” and recommended the board return to that version or reexamine why the draft was substantially changed.

Township officials and other residents raised several recurring, concrete points: the ordinance appears to treat operations differently by square footage thresholds (20,000 vs. larger footprints), the draft may not explicitly address a 30,000-square-foot greenhouse footprint raised by commenters, screening and light-shielding requirements could be applied only after construction rather than before, and a 250-foot separation for some facilities may be missing or inconsistently stated in larger-size sections.

Billy Head, who said he is the zoning administrator for Changletown Township but was speaking as a resident, said his township is a “bedroom community” and that reducing setbacks from what had been proposed removes protections residents expect. John McKenzie, a Royalton resident, asked commissioners to consider how continuous greenhouse ventilation and lighting could affect neighbors: “With cannabis … that grows 24/7, 365. That needs to vent out. That goes in the atmosphere. We’re gonna be smelling that.”

Speakers also asked the board for clarity on bonding for site cleanup after illegal grows and noted several local references: a past large bust near Kettle River, state USDA input that framed some operations as non-agricultural, and local examples of conditional use permits in nearby municipalities. Patrice DeGraeme urged the board to have the full zoning board produce any revised ordinance, rewatch earlier public comments from last May, and ensure township input is included.

The public comment period did not include a formal board vote on the ordinance during the meeting. Commissioners acknowledged the concerns and said they would continue the rulemaking process; no new ordinance language or formal direction was recorded on the transcript during public comment.

The discussion reflected repeated resident concern about neighborhood impacts—odor, nighttime lighting, setbacks and who bears cleanup costs—and requests that any revised ordinance apply uniform requirements to all cannabis cultivation types rather than distinguish by facility size.