Petersburg council denies expansion of vape‑shop zoning to B‑2 commercial district

The Petersburg City Council voted unanimously April 15 to deny a proposed text amendment that would have allowed recreational‑substance retail uses — defined by staff as “tobacco products, nicotine and vaping products, and any hemp products that are consumed by inhalation only” — in the B‑2 General Commercial zoning district with an approved special‑use permit.

Planning Director Naomi Sayadmak told council the request was submitted by Crater Center LLC after earlier versions of the city’s zoning changes limited such retail uses to M‑1 light industrial zones. Sayadmak said staff renewed its earlier recommendation to allow regulated retail in commercial districts by special use permit, but she noted the planning commission had recommended denial.

The issue drew public comment and two hours of council discussion about public health and enforcement. Joe Badison, who identified himself as living on South Sycamore Street, told the council he was "strongly opposed to vape shops in the city." The chair of the Petersburg school board said the division has seen increased vaping among students, including at the elementary level.

Former state senator Joe Marcy, speaking for the applicant, said the department had twice recommended allowing B‑2 with a special use permit and described the applicant’s investment in a build‑out after being told the use would be permitted. "I would ask for the reasons that's set forth in the application as well as the, perhaps the personal commitment that he has made after being told, Yes, you can do it," Marcy said.

Council members debated public‑health concerns, enforcement consistency and the city’s economic goals near the casino corridor. After discussion, Vice Mayor Hill moved to deny the amendment; Councilman Kupfer seconded. A roll call showed all council members voting in favor of denial; the motion carried.

The planning commission record shows a 6‑1 recommendation in favor of denial, while departmental staff had recommended approval. The city’s definition for the proposed text amendment explicitly excluded edible hemp products and marijuana, because intoxicants other than inhaled hemp products are not currently authorized by state law.

Council members said the decision reflects earlier direction given last year and expressed concern about permitting a new class of retail outlets along commercial corridors. The applicant may still pursue a change through the formal amendment process, but council indicated its prior decision to restrict recreational‑substance retail to industrial zoning remains the governing policy.

Details recorded in the public record include the planning commission vote, the applicant’s claim of a roughly $120,000 build‑out investment at a leased property, and multiple comments from schools and residents about youth vaping.