The most contentious topic was a conditional use permit application for cannabis cultivation submitted by Heather, Garrett, and Justin Johnson. Their plan involves both outdoor and indoor cultivation on an 18-acre property previously used for raising horses near Dakota. Despite their assurances of low impact, community members expressed strong opposition, highlighting potential issues such as road safety, property value depreciation, and neighborhood security.

Justin Johnson, representing the petitioners, outlined his experience in the Minnesota Hemp Pilot Program and the proposed discreet nature of the operation, which would be set back from neighboring views. He emphasized compliance with all safety codes and the installation of carbon filtration systems to minimize odor. Johnson also addressed traffic concerns, stating that no retail sales would occur on-site and that only a few workers would be involved during harvest periods.

Residents voiced concerns. Hunter Gross, a neighboring resident, criticized the lack of communication from the Johnsons and highlighted the narrow, single-lane access road’s limitations. He presented data from other states indicating potential negative impacts on property values near cannabis operations, attributing these to odor and visibility issues. Another speaker, Jim Gross, lamented the limited time for community members to organize their concerns, arguing that the short public hearing period disadvantaged the opposition.

Concerns extended beyond property values and road safety to include potential crime and security issues. One participant argued that cannabis cultivation could attract criminal activity, adding stress to local emergency services. The planning commission acknowledged these concerns but noted that state regulations limited the public hearing period to 30 days, affecting the community’s ability to engage fully.

As the public comment section concluded, the commission deliberated on the proposal. A commissioner expressed a reluctance to interfere with legal personal property use. However, others echoed community concerns, emphasizing the need for more extensive public hearings to address such significant proposals adequately.

Despite the concerns raised, the commission ultimately voted to recommend the petition to the county board for final consideration. The board will make its decision on August 12, with community members encouraged to present their views to the county commissioners.

In addition to the cannabis cultivation debate, the commission addressed a variance related to prime soils in St. Charles Township. The Board of Adjustments approved this variance for Colton Pearson, involving a two-acre wooded parcel that had been vacant since a 1994 variance due to subdivision regulations.

The commission also considered a petition from William and Carol Eert and Andrew Cretasi for a conditional interim use permit to establish a new residential building site on less than 40 acres in New Hartford Township. The plan involves dividing 10 acres from a larger parcel for a barn dominium construction. The proposal was met with no public opposition and was unanimously recommended to the county board for final approval.