Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Smoke Vape Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission begins review of vape and smoke shop regulations during six‑month moratorium
Summary
The commission discussed next steps after City Council passed a six‑month moratorium on new vape/smoke shops (Resolution 3879). Staff presented research showing clustering of shops in Bowling Green and outlined zoning, spacing, licensing and signage tools used by peer cities; commissioners asked staff to draft proposed code changes for review.
Bowling Green Planning Department staff briefed the commission on a recent City Council moratorium and asked the commission to start shaping code language to address a rapid increase in smoke and vape shops in the city.
Heather, Planning Department staff, said Council passed a moratorium (Resolution 3879) on April 7 to permit review of zoning, building and business regulations related to vaping and e‑cigarette retailers. "A 6 month moratorium is not a long time," Heather said, noting that zoning updates and code development often take longer and that the commission should act quickly to prepare recommendations.
Staff reported identifying at least 12 primary smoke/vape shops in Bowling Green plus at least 15 secondary retailers and showed maps indicating clustering along North and South Main Street and East Wooster. Heather said four shops opened between January and April of this year, including one that opened immediately before the moratorium was passed.
In a research summary, staff outlined common regulatory approaches used by other Ohio cities and college towns: zoning text amendments that define "vape/smoke shop" or "age‑restricted retail sales," minimum separation distances from schools and from other similar retailers (commonly 500 feet to 1,000 feet; Cleveland had an example of up to two miles), licensing or business registration and caps tied to population, conditional‑use permitting, and limits on hours and window signage. Heather said many communities also fold enforcement of age restrictions and signage rules into licenses and annual renewal processes.
Commission discussion raised practical questions about definitions (primary versus secondary retailers), enforceability of shelf and floor plan rules, potential limits on locations such as gateway corridors, and conflicts of interest when a commissioner owns affected properties. Mark (commissioner) said profitability of tenants and property‑owner incentives to lease to high‑margin tenants are factors the commission should consider. Commissioners agreed Heather should prepare an initial draft text amendment and recommendations for the commission to review before forwarding to Council; Heather said she would email the presentation and a draft when available. The commission will discuss the draft at future meetings and Council will be required to hold a public hearing on any code changes.
