FAIRMONT– The Fairmont City Council on Monday heard from Planner and Zoning Official, Peter Bode, on a number of matters including an amendment to the zoning ordinance to allow for the sale of cannabis products, an amendment to city code, chapter 14 pertaining to licenses and business regulations and an amendment to the animal ordinance.

The first matter of Bode’s business is one he and other city staff have been working on for months, ever since the state of Minnesota legalized cannabis for recreational adult use in the summer of 2023.

The city needs to adopt a cannabis ordinance before Jan. 1, 2025, which is the day under the law that the city must start accepting registrations for new cannabis businesses in the community.

At the Nov. 25 meeting, the council approved the first consideration of the ordinance and on Monday held the public hearing at which point it considered two versions of the ordinance– one that permits cannabis retail businesses in the B3 general business zone and one that also permits them in the B2 zone so that cannabis retailers can operate downtown. Bode said that staff recommended the latter option.

He also went over the key areas of the ordinance, which include that it indicates that the city accepts responsibility for regulating cannabis retails and sets buffers from the business to sensitive uses like schools and daycares. Bode also said the ordinance lists permitted and conditional uses.

During the public hearing, several key stakeholders spoke on the matter including Shelly Larson, Project Coordinator of the Martin County Substance Abuse Prevention Coalition and Kaley Hernandez, Statewide Health Improvement Partnership Coordinator with Health and Human Services of Faribault and Martin Counties. Several students from EMPOWER also spoke up and asked the council to do what it could to limit access of products to youth.

Following about half an hour of public comment, Bode said, “we drafted this ordinance with balance in mind– balancing safety with economic development. This ordinance can be drafted without any buffers and drafted to allow retail locations in any zones.”

He said on the opposite side, the city could increase the buffer from 500 to 1,000 ft. from schools as was suggested during the comment period. Bode said the council could also put a limit, under chapter 14, on the number of retail businesses as the city just needs to allow one.

Finally, he said that the planning commission did recommend removing the park buffer from the proposed ordinance because of the high number of parks located within the city. Specifically, a 500 ft. buffer from parks would restrict State Street, Blue Earth Avenue and a portion of Downtown plaza, which are areas the businesses would likely go.

After the public hearing closed, Council Member Britney Kawecki asked how close both Fairmont Elementary School and Fairmont High School are from State Street and Blue Earth Avenue.

Bode said it was within 500 and 1,000 ft. Kawecki said she would like to see 700 ft. setbacks from a school and 500 ft. from defined playgrounds and athletic fields.

Council Member Jay Maynard, however, said he was opposed to setting a limit on distance that would prevent a business from operating in a retail center on State Street or Blue Earth Avenue. He also said he was open to businesses operating on Downtown Plaza.

Council Member Randy Lubenow said that he was personally disappointed that the state put local municipalities in the position that it had to decide so much on its own. He said he was in favor of putting a buffer of at least 1,000 ft. between schools and any cannabis retail businesses.

Mayor Lee Baarts added that if a business really wants to open and there’s a buffer in one area, they can find another area.

“It’s going to overlap, it’s going to happen. If it overlaps, there’s got to be another place you can find,” he said.

Kawecki made a motion to approve option B which permits retailers downtown with 700 ft. Setbacks from schools and 500 ft. setbacks from playgrounds and athletic fields. Maynard seconded the motion.

Randy Lubenow asked if Kawecki would amend her motion to allow for a 1,000 ft. setback from schools, however, Bode said that there is an already established business that would be affected by that setback.

The motion made by Kawecki passed with Lubenow opposed.

Later in the meeting, the council considered an amendment to chapter 14 of city code dealing with licenses, permits and business regulations. This agenda item was directly tied to the public hearing and second consideration of the cannabis ordinance that was approved earlier in the meeting.

City Clerk Betsy Steuber explained that it was recommended that chapter 14 of city code be amended to include information and processes relating to cannabis and hemp retail registration and temporary cannabis events.

“While the state office of cannabis management will issue license for cannabis related businesses, those businesses must also register with the city,” she said.

The ordinance, drafted by city attorney Flaherty and Hood, mirrors the state ordinance and Steuber said it had been reviewed by state. However, she said there were no set times in the ordinance and that there were no limits on the number of businesses.

Kawecki said that she would like to limit the number of cannabis businesses limited to one private retailer and one municipal. She said she liked the hours of operation to be 10 a.m. to 9 p.m.

Maynard said he was also okay with the proposed hours of operation but that he disagreed with setting a limit of one business because the city is aware of two businesses wanting to come in and operate.

“I honestly believe there isn’t that big of a market for these products in Fairmont that we’ll find a retailer on every street corner,” he said.

As a governmental body, Maynard said he did not believe that was something the council should decide, but that it should let the market decide.

“I think it’s important that we’re thinking about revenue for the city of Fairmont and how much we depend on the liquor store… I don’t think we need three of them competing with the municipal one either,” Kawecki said.

Maynard said he thought it was premature to talk about a municipal cannabis retailer.

Kawecki made a motion to approve the ordinance with the aforementioned setbacks, hours of operation and with a limit of one private retailer. The motion failed 3-2.

Maynard made a motion to go ahead with the setbacks and hours but with no limit to the number of retailers.

After some discussion, Council Member Michele Miller asked if Maynard would consider amending his motion to allow for two retailers and Maynard said no. The motion failed 4-1.

Lubenow then made a motion to approve the ordinance but limit it to two retailers. The motion passed unanimously.

Next, Bode spoke about what staff has been referring to as the “beekeeping ordinance.” Concerns about the lack of beekeeping in the city’s animal ordinance first came to the council in the summer of 2024 and after the council decided not to pursue the matter, city staff and the city attorney decided that guidelines needed to be set regarding the matter and drafted an ordinance.

The council held the first consideration of the ordinance amendment at the Nov. 25 meeting. On Monday, Bode said that after talking to a well-informed community member who reached out, the city had removed some items from the initial ordinance, including the limit of hives on a lot.

“We met with the citizen and came to the agreement that the ordinance will still serve the city’s purpose of registering beehives with a permit without limiting the number of hives on a property, but keeping in place the 10 foot setback from properties,” Bode said.

He added that the permit, which is a $25 fee, is still required so that the city can monitor any complaints should they come in.

“I’m really pleased that staff was able to work with that citizen and come up with a practical ordinance that works,” Maynard said.

The motion to approve the second consideration of the ordinance passed 4-1 with Lubenow opposed as he was still unhappy that staff pursued the ordinance without council direction.