Not in his backyard. 

A North Branch council member is fighting back against a proposed licensed cannabis dispensary across the street from his home, despite the applicant meeting all state and local legal requirements.

Robert Canada successfully delayed approval of Wild River Cannabis LLC’s preliminary retail registration application for a cannabis microbusiness at 4628 Isanti Trail, in the former Ruddy’s Rental space.

He, along with other nearby property owners, expressed concerns about increased traffic, a potential increase in crime, and the proximity to an adult day center run by Provide Care, Inc.

“Now, for those that are selective hearing, I’m opposed to the location,” Canada said. “I’m not opposed to retail. Please let me make that very clear.”

Canada’s remarks also included references to cannabis “most likely” being a “gateway” to other drugs, and how, during his career in law enforcement, he saw “a lot of good families, a lot of good teenagers ruined because of a habit that was uncontrollable.”

The city’s job at this point was to determine whether the proposed use complied with local zoning laws, which it does, according to City Development Director Nathan Sondrol.

“So for us to deny something, it does open us up for litigation, definitely,” Sondrol said.

The application has been tabled to the council’s Oct. 28 regular meeting pending consultation with the city attorney.

If the city approves the preliminary application, James Rayer, the applicant and owner of Wild River Cannabis LLC, can get to work on the building. Once it’s completely ready to open, he will submit all his application materials to the state. Once the state approves, the city will have 30 days to inspect the property for local compliance.

While state statute allows cities to restrict operation of cannabis businesses close to a school or childcare facility, it makes no such allowance for adult centers. Further, when North Branch passed its cannabis business regulations in September, 2024, it only included a prohibition on operating within 1,000 feet of a school, with Canada and the rest of the council unanimously approving it.

At that time, council had the opportunity to pass a more restrictive ordinance, and considered it before ultimately rejecting it in favor of encouraging more varied location options for cannabis businesses.

Public cannabis use remains prohibited in North Branch, per an ordinance modeled after the prohibition on drinking alcohol in public. Former Council Member Travis Miles expressed concern at the time about a potential increase in use in public parks, but Police Chief Dan Meyer said once it is “readily available” he does not anticipate nearby sales increasing use.

Rayer explained the process of his proposed dispensary: a valid, unexpired state ID would be required for entrance, and every customer meets one-on-one in a separate room with a staff member. Their products are dispensed in a sealed package only after payment is received, and customers are instructed not to open the package until they are home.

The council voted 4-1 to table the application to its next meeting, with Jeff Goulet voting nay. Goulet pointed out that Gloria Karsky, another nearby property owner who spoke against the proposed business, said she was concerned about increased traffic, but also talked about selling her land to a developer.

“You did say you’re planning on making a subdivision out there, too, which would also increase traffic,” Goulet pointed out.

Goulet also questioned whether another type of business might increase traffic more.

North Branch is doing a city-wide speed study that includes the intersection of County Road 5 and Highway 95, where the business is slated to open pending approval.

Karsky argued that the adult day center should be treated the same way a childcare facility or school would be treated.

“Shouldn’t vulnerable adults be afforded the same protections as school-age children?” Karsky asked the council. “In my mind, they should be.”

Mayor Kevin Schieber also questioned whether the intent of the state statute was to protect children and “people that maybe don’t have the wherewithal to understand what that business is.”

None of the adult clients of Provide Care Inc. spoke at the meeting, and none of the opponent property owners mentioned consulting with those clients prior to making their case.

The adult day center section of Provide Care’s website does not mention whether any of its clients are vulnerable adults. Its “About” page says only that the company specializes in “personalized services for individuals with physical or developmental disabilities, traumatic brain injuries, and other medical needs.”