Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Signs Smoke Shops topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council members raise zoning, safety concerns as smoke shop and illuminated signs surface on Locust Street
Summary
Councilors debated whether a recently opened smoke shop at Locust Street required zoning review, raised concerns about illuminated window signs, and agreed to table the shop’s exterior sign certificate of appropriateness while staff clarifies compliance and sign type.
Columbia Borough Council on April 22 discussed a new smoke shop on Locust Street, expressed concern about change-of-use and parking impacts in residential areas, and voted to table a certificate of appropriateness for an illuminated sign while staff clarifies whether window signage complies with the borough’s sign ordinance.
The matter drew extended comment from council members and residents who said the storefront — previously a barbershop at Lee’s Lane — now displays bright illuminated window signs and patrons who sit on adjacent sidewalks. Council member Murphy (first reference used here with title) urged the borough to move faster on zoning updates she said would prevent undesired businesses from establishing in residential neighborhoods.
Why it matters: Council members flagged two issues with immediate regulatory implications — whether the Locust Street shop’s operations constitute a permitted change of use under the borough’s zoning ordinance, and whether the bright illuminated signs visible from the street meet the borough’s standards for illumination and exterior signage.
Council members and staff clarified that when a property remains in the same use classification (commercial-to-commercial), zoning staff may not treat a new business type as a formal change of use. A staff speaker noted that a conversion from commercial to residential would be a change of use, but replacing one commercial tenant with another generally remains within the same use category for zoning purposes.
Council discussed whether the borough should pursue an ordinance or moratorium to halt a rush of similar businesses while a new sign and use policy is drafted. Evan (staff member) and Heather Zink (staff member) said there is already work underway on legislation that would define smoke shops and place limits in the zoning code; staff committed to bringing proposed language to the workshop or next business meeting for review.
On the sign application at 234 Locust Street, Historic & Architectural Review (HARB) recommended approval with conditions: change lettering color from yellow to white, add white trim, and set the sign to fit the building’s architrave. Council members, however, noted the applicant already has illuminated digital signs visible in storefront windows. Members concluded the window lighting appears to meet the borough’s definition of an illuminated sign and requires review. Councilmember Kaufman moved and Councilmember Giese seconded a motion to table the certificate of appropriateness for the illuminated sign until the application date, building address, and type of signage are clarified; the motion carried.
The council also discussed sidewalk seating and parking: members said that sidewalk seating requires an explicit permit (a sidewalk-café ordinance exists for restaurants) and that continuous seating by customers outside a smoke shop raised enforcement and nuisance concerns.
Council directed staff to determine whether the window displays qualify as illuminated signs under the sign ordinance, to verify the building parcel and correct application dates, and to enforce any existing rules concerning sidewalk use and off-street parking. The tabled COA will return to council once staff reports back.
Ending: The council’s action paused approval of the exterior sign pending clarification and possible enforcement of window illumination rules and zoning compliance.
