Resident raises light, odor and zoning concerns over local cannabis licensing

A resident told the Pine County Board of Commissioners on Jan. 7 she was asking the board to document current nighttime conditions near a proposed cannabis business and to restore zoning protections the board recently removed from a draft ordinance.

Why it matters: the remarks reflect neighborhood concerns about potential light pollution, nuisance odors and setbacks tied to commercial cannabis operations as licensing moves forward.

Denise Weiss, a Pine County resident who identified herself during the public forum, asked the board to have a county official take photographs in the early evening to document existing dark-sky conditions near a site that a prospective licensee has identified. “I would like pictures taken while it's short evening so that you can see the nice quiet dark that we have now where we can see the skies,” Weiss said.

Weiss also criticized changes to a draft local licensing ordinance that removed township-specific zoning language and reduced setbacks. She said businesses that grow cannabis are often subject to a 500-foot setback but that the county’s draft had removed or reduced that protection. “I was disgusted about the zoning that was all removed out of the draft,” Weiss said, adding she wanted Pine County to reinstate stronger setback and zoning protections for townships that had opted out of county zoning.

On odor and nuisance she argued residents would be exposed to strong odors if large indoor grows were allowed near homes. “As far as the odor and the nuisance, three marijuana plants equal one hog, if we really want to get into the farming aspect of it,” she said, adding concerns about the scale of production and proximity to homes.

Board response and next steps Commissioners acknowledged the public comment and staff flagged the timing: licensing had not yet been issued and the county still had opportunities to consider the rules. County staff had earlier noted the draft ordinance changes and related comments would be part of continuing discussions; no formal amendment or formal policy decision was made during the Jan. 7 meeting.

The public forum comment has been entered into the record and county staff was asked to note the request for photographic documentation for consideration as the licensing and ordinance process proceeds.