Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Contested Tobacco Case topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board denies separate tobacco/e‑cigarette retail outlet at 2122 E. Locust after contested hearing
Summary
After an extended contested hearing the Board of Zoning Appeals denied a plan to operate a stand‑alone tobacco/e‑cigarette retail outlet at 2122 E. Locust Street. The site is part of a long‑standing hookah/restaurant operation; the board concluded the submitted standalone retail plan conflicted with the 2023 ordinance and neighborhood concerns.
The Milwaukee Board of Zoning Appeals voted to deny a request to operate a stand‑alone tobacco and e‑cigarette retail outlet at 2122 E. Locust Street after a contested hearing on May 22. The property is part of a multi‑suite operation that includes a restaurant and hookah lounge that has operated on the site since the mid‑2000s.
Counsel for the applicant emphasized the location’s history and argued the proposed retail area functioned as an extension of an existing, longstanding operation that had previously sold tobacco and hookah supplies in a limited way. Attorney Ovia Gately described the property as a continuous space of conjoined tenant suites with historical retail and on‑premises hookah consumption: that historical pattern, he argued, made the proposal different from a new, stand‑alone vape or tobacco shop.
City departments took the opposite view. DCD and DNS both cited the 2023 ordinance restricting locations of tobacco/e‑cigarette retailers — particularly the prohibition of such retailers in many residential zoning districts and restrictions on siting near schools and youth‑serving uses — and said the petitioner had not shown the exceptional circumstances required to grant a variance. DCD summarized its position: “We do not find that the variance criteria for a tobacco or e‑cigarette retailer have been met.”
Neighbors and community members testified or submitted letters objecting to an intensification of tobacco retail in the corridor; one neighbor told the board that litter from tobacco packaging and proximity to schools and youth centers were major concerns. The applicant said it had conducted neighborhood outreach and modified signage and hours to respond to concerns.
After deliberation the board approved a motion to deny the application as submitted; the motion passed on the record by a 4–1 vote. Board members who voted to deny noted that the plan as submitted described a separate retail use at 2122 rather than a modest, incidental retail display integrated with the restaurant/hookah operation. Several board members also said the applicant could return with a revised plan that reduces the retail footprint or clarifies integration with the rest of the licensed operation.
Ending: The board’s denial does not prohibit limited tobacco sales that remain below the thresholds established in the city code; staff advised the applicant to consult the Plan Examiner if the operator seeks to redesign the space so that tobacco sales remain an incidental, sub‑threshold part of the overall licensed restaurant/hookah operation.
