Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Zoning Vape Shops topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Westminster council delays vote on ordinance defining 'vape shop' after public hearing

2109390 · January 14, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Westminster Mayor and Common Council on Jan. 13, 2025 voted to postpone consideration of Ordinance 2024-09 — a zoning text amendment that would add definitions for “specialty shop,” “tobacconist” and “vape shop” to Chapter 164 and impose distance and location restrictions — until the council’s next meeting on Jan. 27, 2025.

The Westminster Mayor and Common Council on Jan. 13, 2025 voted to postpone consideration of Ordinance 2024-09 — a zoning text amendment that would add definitions for “specialty shop,” “tobacconist” and “vape shop” to Chapter 164 and impose distance and location restrictions — until the council’s next meeting on Jan. 27, 2025. Councilman Huff moved to postpone and Miss Gilbert seconded; the motion carried by voice vote.

The ordinance, introduced Nov. 25, 2024 and noticed in the Carroll County Times on Dec. 4 and 11, would amend multiple downtown and commercial zoning districts to permit or limit tobacconists and vape shops and add special provisions including separation distances for vape shops. Planning staff told the council the ordinance distinguishes specialty shops from dedicated vape or tobacconist uses and recommended approval of the ordinance as introduced. Staff also said the zoning administrator had issued notices of violation in September 2024 to the owner of 279 East Main Street for operating a retail vape sales establishment and for installing signage without city approvals.

At the public hearing several local business owners and representatives urged the council to add a grandfathering clause to protect property owners and tenants who had submitted site plans or were already in the permitting process. A civil engineer who said he owns property downtown stated his client had a contract to lease to a vape shop and asked why the ordinance would make that use nonconforming. Attorney Matthew Herff, representing the property owner identified in the hearing, said his client had submitted a site plan and invested in building improvements and asked that projects with site plans submitted before Nov. 25, 2024 be exempted from the new distance requirements so the permitting process could be completed.

Several speakers emphasized efforts to comply after the city issued a notice of violation. Elias Chohan (identified in testimony as a long‑time Main Street business owner and landlord) described exterior improvements “well over $100,000” to the property and asked the council to allow the submitted site plan to proceed. Norman Asghar, who said he opened a business called Smoke and Wave in May 2024, told the council he had received multiple health inspections with no infractions and removed exterior signage at the city’s direction; he said he had invested money in his first business and asked the council not to force closure.

Planning staff reported that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended adding language that would exempt businesses that had submitted a site plan prior to Nov. 25, 2024 from the ordinance’s distance requirements, so long as the property otherwise complies with city code. The zoning administrator informed the council that he opposed that amendment, saying it would constitute a special privilege for one property and reward continuing operation of an unlawful retail establishment.

Before taking a final vote, several council members said they wanted time to review the testimony and the contrasting positions of planning staff, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and the zoning administrator. Councilman Huff moved to postpone action to the Jan. 27 meeting; Miss Gilbert seconded and the postponement carried.

The council did not adopt the ordinance on Jan. 13. The item will return to the agenda for further consideration on Jan. 27, 2025.