Virginia holds public hearing on draft cannabis zoning and registration rules; county attorney outlines limits of local control

Kristen Swanson, an assistant St. Louis County attorney, told the Virginia City Council and members of the public at a Jan. 14 special hearing that local governments have narrow, statutorily defined authority to restrict where and when state-licensed cannabis businesses may operate.

Swanson, part of the county team who drafted St. Louis County’s ordinance, said the Office of Cannabis Management (OCM) issues licenses at the state level; after the state issues a license the local unit of government must register the business if the location complies with local zoning. "The Office of Cannabis Management is essentially, for lack of a better term, the boss of all of us," Swanson said, describing the split of state and local duties.

Why it matters: Cities must adopt local ordinances now to set zoning, buffer distances, hours and limited civil penalties so local regulators can process state certification requests and register businesses when state licenses are issued. Draft rules at the state level are also subject to public comment through Feb. 12, 2025, and litigation has paused parts of the state licensing rollout, so local officials said they need to adopt workable local rules while state details continue to evolve.

Swanson outlined key provisions local governments may adopt under Minnesota law as amended in 2024: limiting certain retail endorsements to one active local retail registration per 12,500 residents (using the state demographer’s method), time/place/manner restrictions such as hours of operation, and buffer zones around schools and care facilities. She described the buffer language St. Louis County adopted: no retail within 1,000 feet of a school and no retail within 500 feet of a licensed daycare, residential treatment facility or a public park regularly used by minors (playgrounds, athletic fields). Local units may also adopt a petty-misdemeanor public-use prohibition on certain product types for public consumption (Minn. Stat. 152.0263, subd. 5).

Swanson said the 2024 changes shifted the sequence of approvals: the OCM now performs initial licensing and then seeks local certification that the proposed location complies with local ordinances; local officials then have a 30-day window to respond to a certification request. "If a response isn't made within 30 days, the Office of Cannabis Management ... can go ahead and issue the registration," she said, underscoring why local governments want ordinance language in place before registration flows begin.

On licensing and timing, Swanson explained that a social equity license lottery and other initial steps planned by OCM have been delayed by litigation in Ramsey County and appeals, and OCM communications indicate they are aiming for a lottery in spring 2025 pending court outcomes. She also said lower-potency hemp edible retail registrations that were authorized under earlier Department of Health rules will not be required to transfer to the Chapter 342 framework until about summer 2026.

Councilors and staff asked procedural and policy questions: whether a city’s municipal-operated retail license counts toward the 1-per-12,500 cap (Swanson said municipal licenses do not count toward that cap), how the county calculated its population for allocation, and how local zoning districts map to permitted retail, manufacturing and cultivation uses. Jenny Bourbonnais, the city’s community development director, said Planning and Zoning recommended allowing cannabis retail in B2 (Community Business) and B1 (Central Business) districts with buffer and distance limits and proposes prohibiting retail in other districts.

Police policy and local enforcement were a subject of written input. The city clerk tabled a letter from the police chief recommending a local ordinance closely track St. Louis County’s approach so law enforcement can perform local compliance checks and education. Swanson said compliance checks are required (including unannounced age-verification checks similar to alcohol/tobacco enforcement), local governments may impose a civil penalty (Minn. Stat. 342.22) but cannot exceed the state cap, and local authorities may take immediate action in cases of endangerment even if the state later reviews or reverses a local suspension.

Several council members asked for clearer maps and more time to review the zoning overlays, buffer maps (500 ft and 1,000 ft were provided in the packet) and how different license types (cannabis retailer, microbusiness, manufacturer, event organizer, etc.) are treated. Planning and Zoning and staff said they will refine the draft city ordinance and maps; Councilor Paulson asked that the matter return for continued review in the Committee of the Whole.

The council also voted to move the cannabis discussion forward to the next Committee of the Whole for additional review and consideration (motion by Councilor Paulson). The public hearing was closed at about 6:00 p.m.

Next steps: Planning and Zoning will continue drafting zoning and registration language; the city clerk noted OCM’s expedited rulemaking notice is posted and written public comments on the state rules are accepted until 4:30 p.m. on Feb. 12, 2025. City staff asked members of the public who attended to sign in and said printed materials and county guidance are available at City Hall and on the city website.

Ending: Council members and staff repeatedly emphasized that local authority is constrained by state statute and that the draft ordinance will be adjusted as state rules and litigation outcomes become clearer. Planning and Zoning will return a refined draft and maps for the council’s first and second readings before any local registration process begins.