County looking at changes to cannabis codes

The county planning and zoning office is proposing numerous adjustments to the county’s codes regarding cannabis which were presented during a county commissioner work session the morning of Oct. 6.

 

Planning and Zoning administrator Tina Wilson explained most of the county’s existing rules are based on state requirements and suggestions that were presented in a somewhat haphazard manner as the state first legalized cannabis use and then created an Office of Cannabis Management which is still not fully staffed.

 

In a process which county administrator Michael Johnson summarized as “like it or not, here we come,” counties were first told what they “shall” do, and were later informed they “may” follow certain procedures.

 

The proposed changes will be the subject of a public hearing at a future county board meeting.

 

Wilson summarized that her department’s proposals begin with the straightforward step of consolidating all rules and expectations surrounding cannabis into one section of the county code, numbered 6.08. She also pointed out that, while many of the state’s laws focus on specifics of retail establishments, Waseca County has reasons to pay more attention to agricultural aspects, specifically the growing and processing of cannabis. Two area farmers have so far leased land to producers; a number of indoor growing and processing facilities are also being established within the county.

 

The topic of cannabis production, and some of the rule changes in the proposal, sparked numerous observations from commissioners.

 

Commissioner Brad Milbrath, a former county sheriff, suggested there is a “stigma” associated with cannabis, given that possessing the substance was a crime for the majority of most Minnesotan’s lives, and although the product is legal in Minnesota, it remains illegal on the federal level.

 

On the other hand, production and processing are already bringing economic benefits to the local economy, and have the potential to deliver many more.

 

Among the changes Wilson described is a 500-foot “buffer” between any outdoor production fields and a residence. Commissioner Brad Harguth raised a question about any benefits such a buffer might provide, given that the most commonly named inconvenience of a cannabis crop is its odor, which he suggested is noticeable even at much larger distances than 500 feet.

 

Commissioner Brad Krause asked how often the various fees associated with production would be reviewed: Wilson responded that all county fees are reviewed each year, and that the consolidated information in the proposed new law would make reviews more straightforward.

 

Board chair De Malterer pointed out that, as production in the county increases, it may take some work to balance any conflicts with traditional crop production, especially crop additives, given that the cannabis is highly regulated regarding what chemicals it comes in contact with, and might be located near crops where regulations are much different.