---

The question before the county planning commissioners this month was a puzzler— how can Chisago County regulate the negative impact of cannabis growers’ fields on surrounding residences, without creating standards that will make it too costly and essentially ban small, or “microbusiness.”

The planning commission accepted public comment last week as part of the process of a county land use ordinance review.   A number of residents have asked the County Board to adopt rules requiring much larger parcels for cultivation and make the operational setbacks greater.  Also, last week a number of local cannabis microbusiness licensees testified in opposition to suggested amendments.  They hold “microbusiness’ licensing from the state Office of Cannabis Management (OCM) and argued that adopting a proposed 40 acre minimum for cultivation permits in agricultural zones, is going to attract only giant corporations, which is the exact opposite of supporting small operations better positioned to resolve complaints.

Licensee Scott Sheahan pointed out that he employs 20 people and his microbusiness is filling an important niche in the local ag economy. (Microbusiness integrates cultivation, manufacture and one retail outlet. The license allows for a 5,000 square foot field, and/or a half-acre indoors site (ie greenhouse.) 

He suggested the planning commissioners visit and view physical operations to get a better idea of conditions.  

For example —testimony about odor was being greatly exaggerated, he continued.  Perhaps when the plants in the field flower there is a slight fragrance, but for most of the growing season there is not. 

Microbusiness owner Preston Torres added that the standards being proposed would have meant he would “never have been able to start”. He has seven acres and imposing a 40 acre minimum is not realistic for the independent, local grower.

Also— enacting new standards would redefine current license holders as a non-conforming use.  

If a hoop house needed to be replaced or a footprint expansion became feasible,  the existing licensed businesses would be restricted as to what they could do.

The initial complaints that triggered this county ordinance reconsideration stem from concentrated plantings of  multiple small lots, registered under LLC status filed by various growers but under one state cultivation license. The state license conditions limit microbusiness to a two acre canopy of plant in any spot— but the state doesn’t define the spot. 

In Sunrise Township there’s cultivation of multiple  “plots” of two-acre plant canopy on one parcel, which apparently takes advantage of a state loophole but county officials feel this is contrary to the spirit of limiting cannabis plant proliferation. 

The new county ordinance attempts to define what is meant by a state tax parcel,  eligible to be licensed.

Neighbors told commissioners the activity in their area of Sunrise Township is too intense when different plots of two acres, on one parcel, are all being planted, tended to and harvested using trucks and machinery.  The two-acre defined “canopy’ is stretched across a few dozen acres from fenceline to fenceline. There is also too little distance from the business borders to houses and personal property.

Jeff Gravagna commented all that the affected neighbors seek is “reasonable protection” from noise, operations traffic, etc.  “Distance matters,” he said, expressing support for increasing setbacks.

Planning commissioner David Whitney brought up the fact that not all parcels can accommodate 1,000 feet setback (as proposed). He has 100 acres that are L-shaped and he stated he measured circles on a to-scale diagram to comply  and he  couldn’t find a layout that met distances proposed from roads, from houses, from animal shelters, etc.

Ultimately there was a motion for a compromise of 10 acre minimum (not 40) and requiring separation of a two acre stand from other plantings by 1,000 feet, to avoid saturation of cultivated lots.  

The measure will go to the County Board on a 6-1 vote, with planning commissioner Chris DuBose voting against. 

Staff said action could be on the Board agenda for October 7 but more likely October 21.  For clarification— existing microbusiness license holders would be grandfathered in under the terms in effect when they started.

The public hearing for the floodplain ordinance was continued to November, due to awaiting response from state agencies affected.  The county is looking to regulate materials that can be used in certain areas of floodplain, spell out when hydrology technical advice is needed,  and also specifically give  parameters for public works projects.

And, Commissioner Whitney asked to set an informal workshop date for a deep dive on planning commission authority. He expressed his frustration that over the years he has gotten different advice on to what extent applications can be adjusted.  The recent Sno Barons expanded use permit process had him feeling “embarrassed” as hours of deliberation were tossed aside — based on legal staff advice at the last minute.  A workshop will be scheduled soon.

---