Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cannabis Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge stricter cannabis greenhouse rules, citing odor and setbacks
Summary
Multiple residents raised concerns at Pine County public forum about a draft cannabis ordinance they say favors large greenhouse operations without adequate odor controls, screening, or consistent setback rules; commenters urged the board to revisit an earlier, stricter draft that they said better protected residents.
Residents from several townships urged Pine County commissioners to re-examine a draft cannabis ordinance, saying the current version does not protect nearby homes from odors, nighttime lighting, or large greenhouse operations.
John DeGray of Royalton Township told the board he had read the draft and was concerned the ordinance appears to treat operations sized under and over 20,000 square feet differently while not addressing the greenhouse size he expects will be used. He told the board that, as drafted, "there's gonna be no filtering for the smell. There's gonna be no shielding for the lighting," and asked that the county apply odor and screening standards equally to all operations.
Other public commenters raised similar themes. Joe Reed, a pastor from Royalton Township, asked commissioners to consider the issue from a moral perspective and urged caution when allowing cannabis operations in residential areas. Denise Weiss, also of Royalton, said the first draft prepared by the zoning board and local stakeholders followed Minnesota Association of Counties guidance and provided stronger protections; she asked the board to reinstate those protections rather than the "stripped down" version now posted for comment.
Billy Head, a township zoning administrator, said his township functions as a bedroom community and wanted larger setbacks and protections for residents who value nighttime quiet and low disturbance. Patrice DeGraeme urged the county to have the full zoning board prepare any further drafts and to review public comments dating to the prior public comment period that began in May.
Speakers asked the county to clarify several technical points in the draft ordinance, including how canopy calculations would classify greenhouses and whether a 250-foot structure-to-structure setback applies to operations larger than 20,000 square feet. One commenter said a proposed 30,000-square-foot canopy could result in a 45,000-square-foot greenhouse once starter plants and canopy rules are applied, and called for clear lighting and odor requirements and earlier installation of screening.
Several speakers referenced model guidance from state-level and association sources. Denise Weiss said the initial draft followed Minnesota state guidance and the Minnesota Association of Counties (MAC). Another commenter said he had contacted the USDA about whether cannabis counts as agriculture and reported the USDA had said it did not.
Board response: commissioners did not take immediate action but acknowledged public comment and directed staff to continue work on the zoning item; several speakers asked that the county return to a draft that applies consistent mitigation requirements across all cannabis facilities and keeps larger cultivation in industrial or commercial zones.
Ending: The county will consider public feedback as the zoning item moves through the formal process; speakers asked for another review by the full zoning board and more explicit language on odor mitigation, screening, setbacks and lighting in the ordinance.
