Planning commission backs cannabis cultivation permit amid neighbor objections about notice, odor and traffic

The Winona County Planning Commission voted to recommend that the County Board consider a conditional use permit allowing cannabis cultivation on an approximately 18‑acre parcel at 30530 Valley View Road in New Hartford Township. The commission’s recommendation will go to the Winona County Board at its Aug. 12 meeting at 9 a.m.

Petitioners Heather and Garrett Johnson and Justin Johnson asked the commission for a conditional use permit to operate cultivation on land that currently has two metal pole buildings and no dwelling. Planning staff described the parcel as slightly over 18 acres in a valley setting and said the applicants requested permission for outdoor cultivation of up to a half acre (the application also asked for flexibility up to a half acre) and indoor cultivation in existing structures. Staff noted the property is bordered by residential parcels and that the New Hartford Township board indicated it does not support the request.

Justin Johnson, who identified himself as the president of the company that will use the permit and said he has been cultivating under Minnesota’s hemp pilot program for five years, told the commission he intends to keep operations small and agricultural, not retail. “I’m hoping to grow a half acre,” Johnson said. He said indoor operations would use carbon filtration and the operation would follow state security and safety requirements.

Neighbors who spoke at the commission hearing urged caution. Hunter Gross, who said he lives at 30544 Veil (Valley) Road immediately adjacent to the petition site, told commissioners he objected to how nearby residents first learned about the application and said the township appeared not to have been informed before the filing. “With the Johnsons’ plan for an open air, unfiltered outdoor cultivation area, that 1 mile radius from their location will affect nearly half of the residents of Dakota,” Gross said. He raised concerns about increased traffic on a section of Valley View Road that narrows to a single‑lane dirt road, possible odor impacts, property depreciation and demands on emergency services. Jim Gross, another neighbor, said he had received notice just 10 days earlier and said residents needed more time and information.

Commissioners asked the petitioner about security and transport. Johnson said Minnesota licensing requires commercial‑grade security for outdoor grows, including a minimum 6‑foot fence, motion‑sensor lighting, infrared detection and cameras; he said transport of harvested product would be by licensed transporter in a pickup and trailer and estimated harvest transport would be occasional (roughly twice a year at maximum for a half‑acre outdoor operation, more frequently if indoor production expands).

Commissioners discussed notice timelines and legal limits; one commissioner explained the county has a 30‑day review window imposed by state rules and that if the county does not act within that timeline the applicant may receive authorization without a full hearing. After deliberation the commission moved to recommend approval with the staff‑drafted findings and five conditions; the commission recorded a 4‑1‑1 vote to forward the petition to the County Board (four votes in favor, one opposed, one abstention; Commissioner Ryman abstained). The County Board will consider the petition on Aug. 12 at 9 a.m.

Staff materials attached to the petition identify the site address as 30530 Valley View Road, list the two on‑site buildings (54 by 32 feet and 100 by 62 feet), and note the property historically was used for horses. Staff drafted five conditions in the event of approval; the conditions were not read into the record in full during the hearing.

The commission’s recommendation does not itself authorize cultivation; final permitting, licensing and compliance inspections are required by state and county rules.