Skip to content

Public hearing set for cannabis questions

The County of St. Paul passed the first reading of Bylaw 2018-15 to amend the Land Use Bylaw, to address control and regulation of cannabis. Council approved first reading during the Aug. 14 monthly council meeting.
County_Logo

The County of St. Paul passed the first reading of Bylaw 2018-15 to amend the Land Use Bylaw, to address control and regulation of cannabis.

Council approved first reading during the Aug. 14 monthly council meeting.

The changes to the existing bylaw addresses land use, as well as the addition of definitions around cannabis, cannabis production facilities, and cannabis retail establishments.

"We have also provided for these (definitions) to be discretionary uses in certain land use districts," County of St. Paul CAO Sheila Kitz said in an email with the Journal.

Adding definitions of cannabis to existing bylaws that already cover items in the county allows an open dialogue to occur regarding possible cannabis stores, Kitz said.

“The importance of having these as discretionary uses provides residents with the opportunity to weigh in on the approval of a development permit for these types of businesses."

Residents of the county will have a voice when someone applies for a permit to either produce or sell cannabis in the area.

"Any development permit for either a cannabis production facility, or cannabis retail establishment, will require advertising and a period of time for the public to comment on the approval of such permit. Once the bylaw is approved and cannabis becomes legal Oct. 17, these types of businesses could certainly become a reality in the county,” Kitz said.

The first opportunity to speak for, or against, the forthcoming changes is during the county's next council meeting. A public hearing is scheduled for the Sept. 14 council meeting. A copy of the draft bylaw is available on the County of St. Paul's website.

push icon
Be the first to read breaking stories. Enable push notifications on your device. Disable anytime.
No thanks