Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Smoking Lounges topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Colony staff seek direction on zoning changes for smoking lounges and vaping rooms
Summary
City planning staff asked councilmembers whether to require special‑use permits, separation distances, and floor‑area thresholds for standalone smoking lounges and smoking rooms after staff reported rising interest and inconsistent treatment under the zoning and smoking ordinances.
City planning staff asked the Colony City Council for direction on draft amendments to Appendix A, Section 10‑100 of the zoning ordinance to define and regulate smoking lounges, smoking rooms and similar uses, citing growing interest and inconsistent existing rules.
Isaac, a planning staff member, said the city’s zoning code lacks clear standalone definitions for smoking lounges and rooms and that staff has been handling many inquiries by trying to shoehorn those activities under secondary uses or through the city’s smoking ordinance (Chapter 6). “We are coming to the council to get feedback … on whether we should require an SUP for such establishments, whether that be an SUP in all non‑residential districts, whether that be a combination of by‑right in some districts and SUPs in others, whether we should consider a minimum distance requirement,” Isaac said.
Staff asked for guidance on several specifics: whether to require a special‑use permit (SUP) for standalone smoking operations, whether to adopt minimum separation distances (examples discussed ranged from 300 feet to 1,000 feet), and whether to set a maximum share of a building’s gross floor area that may be dedicated to smoking (council members discussed thresholds such as 25%). Isaac said staff has counted about 10 existing operations in differing configurations and additional inquiries from roughly half a dozen prospective operators.
Several councilmembers urged a cautious approach. One councilmember suggested treating new smoking establishments in the same regulatory category as bars or drinking establishments as a starting point. Another said an SUP requirement and a 1,000‑foot separation would provide the council and the planning commission flexibility to address neighborhood impacts and avoid clustering. City Attorney Jeff (first name recorded as Jeff) told council that existing, lawfully established smoking areas would be grandfathered if the council chose to require SUPs for new operations.
Councilmembers also discussed operational controls that could be added as conditions to an SUP, including limits on hours, traffic mitigation and restrictions on secondary activities. Isaac said staff will produce draft ordinance language reflecting council feedback; staff intends to present a draft to the planning commission and then return to council with a recommendation in the next review cycle.
