The council voted to approve the permit as part of its consent agenda, a streamlined process for routine items. However, the decision came after an extended public comment period where neighbors and supporters aired competing concerns about the facility.

Residents living in nearby apartments, including the Two Village complex, raised specific worries about the mosque's operations. Audrey Aronson Johnson, who lives adjacent to the proposed site, expressed concern that five daily prayer services—some occurring outside daylight hours—would bring increased traffic and vehicle headlights that could disturb residents' sleep. She urged the council to add explicit conditions prohibiting outdoor sound amplification or broadcasts. Bob Ericson, a former school board member, raised questions about whether the building's lower level could safely accommodate the mosque's stated occupancy of 143 people, citing fire code exit requirements.

Supporters countered that Lakeville should welcome religious diversity. Emily Taylor and others noted that residents of all faiths deserve access to nearby places of worship. Imam Hassan Jama, representing the mosque, clarified that there would be no public outdoor calls to prayer, addressing one of the primary concerns raised during the planning commission's earlier hearing.

The council ultimately approved the permit without modifications, though some members acknowledged the unresolved questions about building occupancy and safety codes. The decision allows the mosque project to move forward, though the applicants will still need to satisfy building officials on occupancy and exit requirements before opening.

In other business, the council rejected two motions to reassess property owners for costs related to a 2017 hazardous building demolition. The property at 6649 167th Street West was demolished after a fire, costing the city $44,300 plus interest. The property was later sold through a tax forfeiture sale in February 2025. The new owners objected to being assessed for demolition costs, arguing they weren't properly notified at the time of purchase. Council members expressed sympathy but noted their duty to recover costs for taxpayers. The matter remains unresolved.