Planning commission backs ordinance clarifying vape shop, tobacconist and specialty‑shop uses with grandfathering direction

The Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed a proposed text amendment to the zoning ordinance on Dec. 19 that would define and differentiate vape shops, tobacconists and specialty shops and add vape shops as a permitted use in several commercial zoning districts subject to a separation requirement. Following public comment and extended discussion, the commission recommended that the Mayor and Common Council adopt the ordinance with an added grandfathering provision to protect certain pending applications.

Staff explained the amendment grew from recent retail openings that had operated without required approvals and from concern about youth exposure to vaping and limited regulation of vape products. The proposed ordinance would add definitions for tobacconist shops, specialty shops and vape shops and would permit vape shops in the Mixed‑Use Infill, B Business, CC Central Commerce, DB Downtown Business, CB Central Business and PI Planned Industrial zones, with special provisions for NC Neighborhood Commercial. Staff noted the draft includes a mandatory separation distance between vape shops; recognized, long‑established tobacconists would not be affected by the distance requirement.

Several members of the public and property owners spoke during the hearing. One property owner and landlord said he received communications from the zoning administrator warning that any new use needed a site plan and that his tenant’s shop opened without completing the required steps; the property owner is pursuing a Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) appeal and has submitted a simplified site plan. The owner and his attorney urged that any ordinance change not strand a pending site‑plan application and proposed language to exempt properties with a submitted site plan from the new separation rule. A nearby business owner described investments and leases made in reliance on existing circumstances.

Commissioners and staff discussed how some vape and tobacconist uses had existed in the city for years under prior classifications, and acknowledged that city records do not clearly document how every existing shop was classified when it opened. Several commissioners expressed concern about fairness to property owners who are in the process of resolving notices of violation and obtaining site plan approvals. Multiple commissioners advised that a narrowly tailored grandfathering provision — for example, applying to properties with a site plan submitted before the ordinance’s introduction — would avoid unintended consequences while allowing the city to adopt clearer definitions and spacing rules.

At the end of the hearing the commission voted to recommend adoption of the ordinance as drafted to the Mayor and Common Council, with direction to the city attorney to draft and include a grandfathering provision to exempt properties with an active, submitted site plan from the new distance requirement. The motion carried with at least two votes in favor and one commissioner announcing an abstention.

The recommendation will go to the Mayor and Common Council for introduction and further action; the city attorney will prepare grandfathering language for council consideration.