Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Cannabis Regulation topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Shorewood planning commission recommends local control for cannabis registrations

City of Shorewood Planning Commission · August 26, 2025
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

The Planning Commission unanimously recommended City Council adopt housekeeping amendments to Shorewood’s cannabis code, including taking registration authority back from the county and clarifying allowable locations; commissioners said the process should be similar to liquor licensing and involve SLMPD review.

On Aug. 19, 2025, the City of Shorewood Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve housekeeping amendments to the City’s Cannabis City Code that clarify local registration procedures and zoning for recreational cannabis sales.

Planning Director Griffiths told commissioners the amendments are intended to clean up regulations after state legalization and recent Council direction to rescind a prior delegation of registration authority to the county. Griffiths said the City’s parameters for allowed locations are “clearly outlined” and that Shorewood would likely have only one licensed location; he said the process is expected to be handled similarly to the City’s liquor licensing and would include heavy involvement from the SLMPD.

Commissioner Holker asked whether taking back the administrative side of registration would be onerous or costly and whether the City could use an outside consultant; Griffiths said he did not expect a substantial staff burden given the likely small number of applicants. Commissioner Longo asked whether an unmanned kiosk might be legal; Griffiths said an unmanned kiosk “would not be legal at this point” in Minnesota. Commissioner Magistad asked how the City would handle competing registration applications; Griffiths said the City would process applications on a first-come, first-served basis and did not expect many simultaneous filings because available sites are limited. Chair Huskins noted language questions about suspension and reinstatement that Griffiths said were drawn from the State statute.

The public hearing opened and closed at 7:21 P.M. with no members of the public present. Commissioner Magistad moved and Commissioner Ruoff seconded a recommendation of approval; the motion passed unanimously, 5–0. The Planning Commission’s action is advisory; the City Council will consider the amendments at an upcoming meeting.