Local cannabis operator and neighbors spar over lights and compliance in Pine County public forum
Loading...
Summary
During public forum Joe Zappa of IRBA defended his recently licensed cannabis facility, saying the business invested over $1 million locally and invited the sheriff for a tour; nearby residents, led by Denise Weis Graston, urged the board to require light and odor mitigation, citing what they say are large planned lighting increases.
Joe Zappa, representing IRBA, told the Pine County Board during public forum that local reporting had overstated problems at his newly licensed cannabis facility and undercut a mostly successful local investment. Zappa said IRBA has ‘‘invested over $1,000,000 dollars in the community’’ with local contractors and ‘‘hired a little more than 10 people here locally’’ with benefits, and that state OCM inspections identified compliance. He said the company invited the sheriff for a site tour to address security concerns.
Neighbor Denise Weis Graston disputed the countyfacts-and-findings document and told the board the paperwork IRBA filed with the state shows plans for substantially expanded lighting in at least one greenhouse. Graston summarized the permit paperwork she reviewed, saying Greenhouse No. 4 currently has HPS lights and IRBA planned to add LED fixtures that would increase that greenhouselighting to what she described as roughly 230,000 watts, and argued that would mean a ‘‘huge, huge increase on lights and light pollution.’’ She urged the board to require light mitigation and odor controls to protect nearby residents.
Les Orvis of Royalton Township, speaking in the public comment period, defended the zoning process and disputed characterizations in the news coverage. Orvis said the state administrative rule cited in newspaper reporting addresses business security rather than grow-light technology, and argued the county and township should follow statutory language and established process.
County staff acknowledged receipt of a letter from Royalton Township and described follow-up communications with township supervisors; staff said they had offered further conversation and proposed a face-to-face meeting to clear up misunderstandings. No formal enforcement action or new regulation was adopted at the meeting; commissioners and staff said they would continue outreach and keep the lines of communication open.
What happens next: staff indicated they would continue dialogue with township representatives and that the sheriff had been invited for a tour; neighbors requested the board consider light and odor mitigation measures as regulators and planners review the matter.

