Missouri City considers 90-day moratorium on new smoke and vape shops

Missouri City officials held a public hearing at a special council meeting to receive comments on a proposed 90-day moratorium on new smoke and vape shops within city limits, City Attorney E. Joyce told the council. The moratorium would pause new applications under Subchapter E of Chapter 212 of the Texas Local Government Code while staff and the council draft an ordinance addressing smoke- and vape-oriented retail uses.

The moratorium is aimed at businesses that derive 30% or more of gross sales from smoking-related products, E. Joyce said. The proposed definition includes cigarettes, cigars, e-cigarettes, pipes, hookahs, bongs, tobacco, cannabis and hemp products and vape cartridges. The city attorney said the 30% threshold is intended to exclude convenience stores and grocery stores that sell some tobacco products but are not primarily tobacco retailers.

E. Joyce told the council Missouri City currently has about 20 smoke and vape shops, most located along major commercial corridors such as Highway 6 and on 2234. She said staff is already preparing an ordinance for the Planning and Zoning Commission; the commission will hold a required public hearing on Thursday, July 31, after which a temporary moratorium could take effect. E. Joyce told the council the first consideration of a moratorium ordinance is scheduled for the council’s Aug. 4 meeting, and a second-reading consideration is planned for a special meeting on Aug. 11; the temporary moratorium would expire Nov. 9 if enacted for the maximum 90 days allowed under state law.

Council members asked how the moratorium would affect existing businesses. E. Joyce said existing smoke and vape shops would be grandfathered and could continue to operate unless the city “goes through the state required process to have them cease operations.” She and council members discussed options to limit future use at locations that become vacant, including language tying the permitted use to continuous operation and possible abandonment provisions to prevent an owner from vacating a location and immediately reestablishing the same use under a new name.

Councilmember Tim Brown Marshall said he supported the expedited timeline, thanking staff and the Economic Development Committee for raising the issue. Councilmember Riley asked whether any applications were already in the permitting queue; E. Joyce said some businesses were in the certificate-of-occupancy process and that those already submitted could not be affected by a moratorium, though she believed most of those are included in the current count of about 20 and that one additional pending application would bring the total to 21. Riley also asked whether cannabis dispensaries would be covered; E. Joyce said cannabis is included among the listed smoke-related products but acknowledged she had not reviewed every possible product sold in local shops and invited council members to suggest additional items for the ordinance.

A public commenter identifying a business (Rotem Bridal Locksmith, per the transcript) asked whether the city could include language to end a specific use when an operator vacates a location; E. Joyce said the city could consider that provision when drafting the ordinance. Council members asked that staff prepare communication explaining the moratorium to existing businesses; E. Joyce said she would work with staff to prepare outreach.

No formal vote or ordinance was adopted at the special meeting. The public hearing on item 4(a) was opened and closed during the session, and no council action was taken other than scheduling the next formal steps. The Planning and Zoning Commission’s public hearing on the proposed ordinance was scheduled for July 31; the council is set to consider first reading on Aug. 4 and a possible second-reading adoption on Aug. 11.