Zoning Board reviews tobacco definitions amid vape shop permit challenges

In a recent meeting of the Charleston County Board of Zoning Appeals, significant discussions centered around the interpretation of zoning regulations concerning a proposed vape shop. The meeting, held on June 2, 2025, highlighted the complexities of defining what constitutes a "tobacconist" and the implications for local zoning laws.

The primary focus of the discussion was the applicant's assertion that their business model does not classify them as a tobacconist, as defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary, which describes a tobacconist as a "dealer in tobacco, especially at retail." The applicant emphasized that their shop would not sell tobacco products, thereby arguing that they should not be subject to the same regulations that govern tobacco sales. This point was underscored by their commitment to comply with the Omnibus Tobacco Enforcement Act of 2023, which prohibits sales of tobacco and vape products to minors.

The conversation also touched on the broader regulatory landscape, with the applicant asserting that zoning is not the sole regulatory framework governing their business. They argued that the zoning administrator's interpretation of the regulations should be upheld, as it aligns with their intention to operate a family-friendly establishment. The applicant noted that they had voluntarily agreed to exclude tobacco sales from their business model to ease the permitting process and address community concerns.

Board members engaged in a detailed examination of the definitions and implications of nicotine and tobacco, with questions raised about whether nicotine, a component of tobacco, should influence the classification of their products. The applicant clarified that while nicotine is found in tobacco, the products they intend to sell do not contain tobacco, thus reinforcing their position that they do not fall under the tobacconist category.

Additional discussions revealed concerns from board members regarding the community's intent behind zoning regulations, particularly in maintaining a walkable development style and limiting auto-centric businesses. The applicant's exclusion of tobacco from their offerings was seen as a positive step towards aligning with community values, yet some board members questioned whether further restrictions on nicotine-containing products might better address community health concerns.

As the meeting concluded, the board faced the challenge of balancing regulatory clarity with community interests. The outcome of this discussion will likely set a precedent for how similar businesses are classified and regulated in Charleston County, reflecting ongoing tensions between local governance, public health, and business interests. The board is expected to deliberate further on these issues, with a decision anticipated in the coming weeks.