Winona County commissioners voted to adopt a county-level cannabis zoning ordinance framework on Jan. 9, approving a preliminary Chapter 17 that largely follows state templates while reserving further registration details for a later stage.

County planning staff said the ordinance provides a base regulatory framework — definitions, zoning districts, setbacks and an initial chart showing which cannabis-related uses could be permitted by conditional or interim use permit. Eric (planning staff) told the board the draft “stayed in our lane” and is intentionally limited because the county must wait for the Office of Cannabis Management and final state administrative rules before accepting applications.

The adoption matters because it creates the zoning structure the county will use when the state begins issuing preliminary licenses and the Office of Cannabis Management issues binding regulations. Under the timeline discussed in the meeting, Winona County will begin accepting applications no later than 90 days after the state adopts binding administrative regulations; staff said the county is also collecting delegation decisions from cities and townships and must open an account with the Office of Cannabis Management to receive notifications.

Board members pressed staff on several details during debate. Commissioners discussed whether the county’s language — which mirrors state wording that requires at least one registration per 12,500 residents — establishes a floor or a cap; planning staff clarified that the draft currently tracks state language (a minimum), and any numerical limits would be developed later as part of the registration process. Staff also said the county intentionally prohibited retail cannabis as a home-occupation use and added setbacks from sensitive features; testing laboratories were placed in commercial/industrial districts as permitted uses subject to county development standards such as parking, fencing and performance measures.

On security and diversion, planning staff told the board that the state has existing security requirements in statute and that the county could place additional conditions on interim or conditional use permits if local reviewers judged state requirements insufficient. Staff referenced state provisions for surveillance, locking mechanisms and secure storage as the baseline and said local permitting remains a tool to add conditions if needed.

Commissioner discussion ranged from accepting the state template to urging the county to be ready to add local conditions. “We stayed in our lane on the most part,” Eric said, summarizing staff’s approach. Commissioner Meyer and others asked whether low-potency hemp sellers would be affected; staff confirmed those products were intentionally excluded from regulation at this stage so existing businesses are not disrupted.

Votes at a glance
- Adopt Chapter 17 (cannabis zoning framework): approved (motion recorded; tally not roll-call).
- Consent items (as read into the record by staff) including CUP for Jeremy and Rebecca Schmidt; cancellation of Jan. 14 meeting; service agreement with Olmsted County for tuberculosis clinic; renewals of Day Training and Habilitation agreements; designation of transportation project publication; amendment to a well sealing contract; 2025 MN federal boating safety grant; exempt gambling permit for Bluff Country Chapter of Minnesota Deer Hunters Association; disposal of excess furniture/equipment; confirm payment of disbursements: all listed consent items were approved as presented.

What happens next
Staff said the county will continue work with townships and cities to collect delegation decisions, open an account with the Office of Cannabis Management to receive rule updates, and develop registration materials and any local limits or additional conditions for permits and registrations. The board approved the ordinance framework but several commissioners said they expect follow-up work and possible ordinance amendments once state rules arrive.

Ending
County staff emphasized the adoption is a first step and that more detailed registration procedures, fees and any locally imposed limits will be developed and brought back to the board once the state’s administrative rules and local delegation decisions are clear.