Planning commission recommends conditional use permit for craft cannabis cultivation in Whitewater Township

The Winona County Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of a conditional use permit allowing outdoor cannabis cultivation on a 37.18-acre parcel in Whitewater Township. Petitioners Thomas and Linda Christofferson told the commission they are applying for a micro-business cultivation endorsement and proposed a quarter-acre outdoor cultivation site on their property at 10241 County Road 26.

Planning staff presented the petition under county zoning ordinance chapters 10.46 and 17.22, the latter being the county’s new cannabis chapter adopted earlier in January. County legal counsel revised the findings of fact to clarify limits and the county’s expectations, including a statement that the county may inspect the site for compliance if necessary and that the applicant must adhere to evolving state statutes and rules.

Thomas Christofferson said, "We're applying for a micro business, cultivation endorsement, which so it is just cultivation," and described the operation as a small-scale, craft outdoor grow that uses containerized plants, a directed strip-irrigation system and a private well. He said the current plan includes about 480 containers and estimated water use for the cultivation at less than 10,000 gallons for the operation described.

Key application details and conditions discussed at the meeting: the parcel is in an agricultural-resource-conservation zoning district; the petitioners reported prior experience growing hemp and said the facility will not operate retail sales on the farm site (they indicated any retail activity would be through a city license in St. Charles); the petitioners said they already hold a conditional state license that is contingent on local approval and a state inspection.

County attorney Steve said he revised the findings to make county expectations clearer and to document statutory buffers and restrictions applicable to cultivation. "The changes I made basically were to clarify both for purposes of our ordinance in the statute and just so the public knows the restrictions, what rules apply to this," he told the commission. He also noted the county could make the permit an interim use permit tied to activity periods, or add conditions requiring the operator to notify the county if cultivation stops for a period of time.

Commissioners discussed a procedural timing problem: state licensing requires a county response within 30 days via the state electronic system, but meeting schedules and county notice requirements make that deadline difficult to meet. Staff and counsel outlined options, including asking the county board to consider a special meeting or otherwise coordinate timing so that county conditions are documented before or soon after the state acts. Planning commission members said they would forward the recommendation and the legal findings, and urged county staff and counsel to coordinate with county commissioners to avoid losing county conditions due to the state's 30-day process.

The planning commission's recommendation passed by majority with one abstention (Louis, listed in the transcript by first name only). The commission forwarded the findings and the recommendation to the county board; staff identified July 8 as the next possible county board hearing date but noted the parties were prepared to seek other scheduling if needed to address state timeline issues.

Next steps: the petition will be forwarded to the county board for final action; the petitioners must meet county conditions, maintain compliance with state licensing and inspections, and keep the county apprised of cultivation status per the conditions and statutes cited by counsel.