Solon City Council on July 7 adopted two zoning ordinances: one adding vape and smoke shop regulations to the zoning code and another creating rules for adult‑use and dual‑use cannabis dispensaries. The votes were taken under suspension of the rules after council approved an amendment banning displays of cannabis‑related merchandise visible from sidewalks, rights‑of‑way or adjacent properties.

Council credited the planning commission and the new planning director for drafting the language. Councilmember Bentley introduced the motion and council adopted an amendment to the proposed visibility rules that substituted “vape shops” language for draft cannabis language and prohibited any merchandise, photos or representations of the products from being displayed in areas visible from public spaces.

Councilmember Trumfuss said the new rules were intended to curtail proliferation of storefronts that the city believes have appeared faster than regulation could keep up with. “We’re a little bit behind the game on this one, and this is the best that we could do with what we got to work with,” he said.

Public commenters at the meeting raised strong objections to the presence of dispensaries in Solon. Several residents urged the city to prohibit dispensaries outright or said the city had failed to follow the voter‑approved mixed‑use ordinance language that they contend prohibited certain businesses in parts of the city. One commenter, Jeff Pedicino of 6964 Elmwood Drive, cited public‑health and public‑safety studies about legalization elsewhere and urged enforcement of what he said were prohibition provisions in Solon’s mixed‑use district.

Members of the public also asked whether the city had forfeited the opportunity to opt out under state law. The law director and the administration responded: the administration did not opt out in late 2023/early 2024 and planning staff accepted zoning permit applications later in 2024; the law director cited Ohio case law (Gibson v. Oberlin, Ohio Supreme Court, 1960, and subsequent authority) that generally bars retroactive zoning amendments that would impede a development that was permitted under the regulations in force when the applicant applied.

Council approved the vape‑shop ordinance (addition of section 12.87.11 to the zoning code and amendments to chapter 12.61) and the adult‑use/dual‑use cannabis ordinance (section 12.87.12) on final passage. The visibility amendment was adopted before final passage. Council asked staff to continue clarifying definitions and enforcement mechanics.