Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Zoning Appeal Medical Cannabis topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board affirms planning commission, denies appeal for proposed medical cannabis dispensary and processing site

Harrison County Board of Supervisors · June 8, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Harrison County supervisors denied an appeal of the planning commission’s approval for a medical cannabis dispensary and processing facility (case 2604 HC97). Opponents cited proximity to a church and concerns about odors and property values; the applicant said the site is for processing (no cultivation). The board affirmed the planning commission by recorded vote.

The Harrison County Board of Supervisors on May 14 denied an appeal of the planning commission’s approval for a conditional use permit to allow a medical cannabis dispensary and processing facility at 8027 Men Avenue (case 2604 HC97).

Appellant Osby E. Johns told the board he was opposing the approval because the proposed operation was “too close to family…and the next reason is…it's close to a church.” Neighbors asked whether the facility would create odors or depress property values; one adjacent property owner asked whether work inside would be visible or smelled from nearby homes.

Applicant Kyle Lley (MSRP LLC) described the project as a medicinal processing operation that would make tinctures and sugar‑free gummies and emphatically stated, “We will not be cultivating.” He said processing uses solventless methods and odor controls (air scrubbers and filters) would prevent smells outside the building.

Planning staff reminded the board that only the record made before the planning commission and oral arguments may be considered on appeal. After board members questioned need and compatibility, a motion to deny the appeal was made, seconded and carried; the transcript records a final tally affirming the planning commission’s decision (denial of the appeal) by a recorded vote (four in favor of denying, one opposed).

The board noted the appellant has 30 days to file further post‑hearing exceptions or pursue judicial review under applicable procedures.