Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Cannabis topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Moose Lake council adopts cannabis business rules, approves zoning changes including vacation-rental language
Summary
The Moose Lake City Council on April 9 approved Ordinance No. 176 regulating cannabis businesses and amendments to the city zoning ordinance (No. 104) to add cannabis businesses and vacation-rental provisions; councilors raised concerns about vacation-rental locations and tax collection.
The Moose Lake City Council voted April 9 to adopt Ordinance No. 176, establishing regulations for cannabis businesses, and to approve related amendments to Ordinance No. 104 that modify zoning definitions and add rules for cannabis business operations and vacation rentals. Councilor Lou Ohly moved to approve Ordinance No. 176 with a correction to a typo in Section 3.1.3; the motion was seconded by Councilor Walter Lower III and recorded as approved by the listed voting councilors.
The zoning changes in Ordinance No. 104 passed after discussion about how to control vacation-rental locations and ensure taxation. Councilor Kris Heaton-Huso voiced concern about limiting and controlling where vacation rentals could operate inside city limits. Councilor Doug Juntunen pressed city staff to ensure that sales and lodging taxes would be collected from vacation-rental owners under the revised rules.
The ordinances were approved with the votes recorded as Yes from Councilors Lou Ohly, Doug Juntunen, Kris Heaton-Huso and Walter Lower III. The measures will take effect according to the city’s normal ordinance-adoption timeline and any administrative steps required for implementation. The council did not record further amendments during the meeting.
The council’s action follows prior planning work to integrate cannabis-business regulation into the city code and to update zoning language; the meeting record does not specify effective dates or administrative implementation details beyond the approval vote. The council also noted a small administrative correction in Ordinance No. 176 (Section 3.1.3) during the approval motion.
