Planning commission approves cigar‑lounge special‑use permit but bars on on‑site alcohol

The City of Laredo Planning and Zoning Commission on a recommendation vote approved a special‑use permit for a smoking establishment (cigar lounge) at 2411 Jackman Road, Suite 400, but explicitly prohibited on‑premise alcohol consumption. The applicant, identifying his business as Porciona Cigar Whiskey Lounge, will be allowed indoor smoking under the permit only if the business does not serve alcohol on the premises.

The commission’s approval followed a lengthy staff presentation that recommended denial. Planning staff told commissioners that the land development code defines “smoking establishment” and includes cigar lounges but the city’s health and sanitation ordinance (Chapter 15, Article 6) prohibits smoking in bars and other public places — creating a conflict when a business both allows on‑site smoking and serves alcohol. Planning staff summarized that “once you have the commingling of those uses, we have to go to our health code, which does prohibit smoking in all public places, including restaurants and bars.”

Applicant Jeronio Contrino, who described himself as founder and representative of Porciona Cigar Whiskey Lounge, told the commission he had designed the business to meet the land development code definition for a smoking establishment (including an isolated HVAC system) and said staff had mixed definitions from different codes in recommending denial. He said in part: “the staff's recommendation to not support this project is commingling the definitions and basing their decision on an ordinance that simply does not exist. On 3 separate occasions … the verbiage, and I quote, ‘smoking establishment with alcohol sales, alcohol serving, and on premise alcohol consumption is prohibited as per the City Of Laredo code of ordinances chapter 15 article 6,’ end quote.” He also described the proposed unit as approximately 1,469 square feet and said alcohol sales would be incidental and limited.

Planning staff reviewed other regulatory limits that affect the application even without alcohol. The land development code contains an 800‑foot buffer requirement created by council in the past two years; staff showed a distance map indicating the proposed location sits about 466 feet from the nearest residential district, below the 800‑foot threshold. Staff also flagged parking noncompliance (the applicant is short by three spaces) and discussed how the specialty retail/smoking establishment exception to the health code applies only where no on‑site alcohol is served and where an entire suite is devoted to smoking uses with required HVAC isolation.

After public testimony from the applicant and no speakers opposed during the hearing, commissioners debated options including denying the request, approving the smoking establishment only, or tabling the item to refine conditions. The commission ultimately approved the permit limited to a smoking establishment (cigar lounge) with no on‑premise alcohol consumption, and with edits to staff conditions requested by the applicant. Those edits included changing the minimum age for entry to 21 (applicant said staff’s packet listed 18, which he said would violate federal law), and modifying Thursday hours to match Friday and Saturday closing at 11 p.m.; the approved motion also left the remainder of staff’s recommended conditions in place (HVAC isolation, limits on structures and signage, compliance with building and fire codes, and other operational requirements listed in the staff report).

The motion passed with one recorded abstention. Planning staff and legal counsel told the applicant he may still bring the item to city council for final action regardless of the commission’s recommendation.

Why it matters: the decision permits the first‑in‑town smoking establishment as framed by the applicant, but it removes on‑premise alcohol — a point that reflects an unresolved tension between the land development code’s definitions and the city health ordinance. The commission’s recommendation sends the item to city council, where final interpretation and any change in policy or code language would be decided.

Next steps: The commission’s recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council for final action. The applicant may also choose to refine the permit or seek a separate bar permit if he pursues on‑site alcohol in the future; staff noted that a separate bar permit would be regulated under different definitions and health rules.