Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Regulations Retail topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission hears proposal to cap vape shops and to curb neon/LED window lighting; grandfathering and enforcement questions raised
Summary
Councilor Camille Berdine presented proposals to limit new vape/smoke shops (proposed cap: one per 10,000 residents) and to prohibit neon and LED window lighting citywide; commissioners and staff debated grandfathering and enforcement under state nonconforming‑use law.
Councilor Camille Berdine asked the Planning Commission to review two related proposals: one to limit the number of vape and smoke shops and one to prohibit neon and LED lighting in commercial windows.
On vape shops, Berdine proposed defining a vape or smoke shop as a retail business where 25% or more of the public floor area is dedicated to vape or smoking products, and capping new shops at one per 10,000 residents. Berdine said Lebanon’s population is approaching 50,000, so the cap would allow about five shops citywide; existing shops would be allowed to continue but the cap would prevent new openings. Staff and commissioners discussed that a similar ordinance elsewhere used one per 5,000 population and that the city’s Google search estimate suggested about 14 existing shops.
On window neon/LED lighting, Berdine said the intent is to address complaints about excessive internal lighting and that attorneys advised taking a citywide approach to avoid selective rules. Commissioners and staff discussed enforcement under state nonconforming‑use law. City counsel explained that nonconforming uses are typically protected: if a lawful use becomes nonconforming under a new regulation, the use remains until it is abandoned or unused for a statutory period (commonly about 30 months), after which the property must comply with the new code. The city attorney said the application of that doctrine to interior neon or LED window signs requires further review and that signs that already complied with code are unlikely to be removed retroactively without a legal basis.
Commissioners asked whether existing complaints and the city’s current outdoor lighting and sign codes could address some issues now; staff said open cases lodged in January would be pursued. Commissioners also raised concerns about unintentionally regulating sign content (for example, an illuminated "Open" sign) and staff suggested a content‑neutral approach (limiting size or number of illuminated window signs rather than banning specific text). One commissioner emphasized small businesses’ reliance on an illuminated "Open" sign and urged care in drafting language.
No final ordinance vote was recorded in the transcript. Staff and commissioners agreed the commission should refine details—definitions, grandfathering language, enforcement mechanisms, and whether to handle the lighting issue through the sign code—before forwarding a recommendation to council.
