Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Cannabis Dispensary topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Bartlett planning commission recommends approval of 'Good Behavior' cannabis dispensary, amid resident objections

Planning and Zoning Commission of the Village of Bartlett · August 7, 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

The Bartlett Planning and Zoning Commission voted to forward a positive recommendation to the Village Board for a special‑use permit for 'Good Behavior,' an adult‑use cannabis dispensary at 1638 S. Route 59, after hearing applicant testimony on operations and resident testimony raising proximity, traffic and safety concerns.

The Bartlett Planning and Zoning Commission on July 9 voted to recommend approval of Case 2604, a special‑use permit request from Prairie Retail Holdings to operate a 1,500‑square‑foot adult‑use cannabis dispensary branded “Good Behavior” at 1638 S. Route 59.

Andrew Scott, the applicant's attorney, told the commission "what we're before you this evening is seeking a special use permit for an adult use cannabis dispensary." He described a single‑story retail space in a 10,400‑square‑foot building, said the operation would use a three‑zone layout (public access, limited‑access sales floor and a restricted vault), require key‑fob access and interior and exterior high‑definition cameras, and be subject to state inventory tracking and inspections.

The commission heard multiple residents from the Far Hills subdivision oppose the site. In a written exhibit read into the record, resident Robert Heim urged denial, writing, "I strongly urge the commission to deny case 26042," and at the podium said the location was "the wrong location to choose" because of its proximity to Bartlett Gymnastics and nearby homes.

Commissioners asked clarifying questions about hours, deliveries and waste disposal. The applicant proposed modestly extended evening hours—seeking up to 11 p.m. on some nights—citing recent state law changes. Commissioners debated whether to include hours as a recommended condition; several said the Village Board could set final hours. After discussion, a motion to forward a positive recommendation to the Village Board based on staff findings and the conditions proposed by staff passed on roll call; two commissioners voted no.

The planning staff noted the application included required notifications and exhibits. The commission's recommendation will be considered by the Village Board at a future meeting; the board may adopt conditions, including hours, when it takes up the case.