Council committee moves four tobacco-related ordinances forward to curb smoke shops and limit window signage

The Finance Committee approved four companion pieces of legislation aimed at regulating tobacco products, vaping and the recent proliferation of “smoke shops” in Cleveland.

The ordinances considered were: - Ordinance 186-2025: Amend local tobacco distribution code to align with state Tobacco 21 requirements. - Ordinance 187-2025: Create a tobacco retail licensing program requiring tobacco retailers (including smoke shops, convenience stores, cigar shops and grocery retailers that sell tobacco products) to obtain a local license; require inspections; and establish graduated civil penalties for violations. - Ordinance 188-2025: Zoning code amendment to define and regulate “smoke shops,” including a two‑mile separation buffer between smoke shops and a 500‑foot buffer from schools, parks, libraries, day cares and recreation centers; committee adopted emergency amendments to make zoning provisions effective immediately on mayoral signature. - Ordinance 189-2025: Limit window signage coverage to a maximum of 25% of any storefront’s window area to increase visibility for first responders and reduce secondary effects of storefronts with opaque window coverage; this ordinance was amended to be declared an emergency so its window-visibility provisions can take effect promptly.

City staff said the city has seen a rapid rise in permit applications to establish smoke shops since January 2025 — staff reported about 42 formal permit applications as a baseline in earlier materials and indicated the number had grown to roughly 100 by committee time; outside reviews and searches estimated several hundred retail locations selling smoke‑shop style products citywide. Planning and health staff showed images of retail interiors and described shops displaying hemp/THC-adjacent products, kratom and other products that fall outside the state’s licensed cannabis framework.

Under the proposed tobacco retail licensing framework (Ordinance 187), licensed retailers would be subject to twice‑annual and complaint‑based inspections; health‑department inspections would include underage purchase checks, verification of required signage and review for unlawful sales of state‑licensed cannabis products. The proposed enforcement regime sets civil penalties that escalate for repeat violations (for example, first violation $500, second within 36 months $750, third $1,000 and a 30‑day suspension of license; a fourth violation triggers revocation of the tobacco retail license). Staff told the committee they expect enforcement to rely more on administrative health inspections and licensing than on criminal actions; the health director also said inspections and licensing could be supplemented by coordination with police on unlawful product sales.

Council members and staff discussed grandfathering and implementation. Planning staff said only businesses that filed a use permit prior to the ordinance’s effective date would be treated as existing, legally established uses; most of the pending permit applications would consume the remaining allowable locations under the two‑mile buffer. Because the two‑mile separation and the 500‑foot buffer together make most locations in the city unavailable for new smoke‑shop uses once the ordinances take effect, staff advised the two‑mile buffer is the most powerful tool to limit concentration rather than an absolute cap on license counts. The committee adopted emergency language for the zoning sections (Ordinances 188 and 189) so certain provisions could take effect immediately on mayoral signature.

On enforcement capacity, the health director said six local health inspectors will add this work to their caseload and four additional temporary positions would be assigned to start the licensing program; a private foundation pledged $50,000–$100,000 to support initial enforcement and education, and staff estimated license fee revenue could generate roughly $150,000–$200,000 annually to support enforcement. Committee members repeatedly pressed staff that enforcement follow through is required and asked for periodic reports on inspections, citations and license suspensions to monitor compliance.

Committee members also asked about the state preemption risk. Staff advised that Cleveland was part of a multi‑jurisdictional legal challenge to a state preemption measure and that, as of committee time, the city retained local authority to regulate tobacco retail licensing due to pending litigation and lack of a comprehensive state regulatory framework.

The committee approved the four ordinances as amended and asked administration to circulate the final licensing rules, enforcement plan and a map/list of pending permit applications by ward.