Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tobacco Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
After city attorney briefing, commission asks staff to study zoning options to limit smoke-shop clustering
Summary
City Attorney David Megitt briefed the Jacksonville Beach Planning Commission on state preemption of tobacco sales but noted municipalities can use zoning tools to restrict new smoke-shop locations; commissioners asked staff to research options and return recommended language and precedent examples for future consideration.
City Attorney David Megitt told the Planning Commission on March 23 that Florida law largely preempts local governments from regulating tobacco sales, but municipalities can use zoning to limit where certain tobacco retail formats (such as specialty "smoke shops") locate.
"In Florida, the state legislature has generally preempted local governments from regulating tobacco," Megitt said, and he noted the federal minimum purchase age was raised to 21 in 2019 and Florida codified a 21 minimum in 2021. He said municipalities retain authority to restrict smoking in places they own (for example public beaches and parks) and, in limited circumstances, to regulate retail location through zoning (for instance, by creating a distinct 'retail smoke shop' land-use or by applying distance buffers from schools, churches and parks).
Megitt outlined recent local approaches: North Miami Beach created a distinct retail-smoke-shop use that is conditional in certain zoning districts with distance buffers (examples cited included 1,000 feet from schools and hospitals), Port St. Joe limited smoke shops to industrial districts and used larger buffers, and Orange County was considering school-distance restrictions after a shop opened close to a high school.
Commissioners said a recent cluster of smoke shops in Jacksonville Beach, some close to institutions, prompted the request for this briefing. One commissioner proposed "consider[ing] a special designation" in the LDC or other contours to manage density, stressing the proposal was about land-use and density rather than a moral objection. "I don't want uninterrupted strings of the same thing," the commissioner said.
Staff responded that the LDC revision cycle and an upcoming "glitch" cleanup bill present opportunities for language changes but cautioned substantive changes would require more time and legal review. Megitt advised caution about constitutional limits and potential litigation risks and reminded commissioners to avoid private discussions about the issue outside public meetings under the Sunshine Law.
The commission did not adopt any ordinance or binding restriction at the meeting. By consensus, commissioners asked staff to research options, compile the cited bills and ordinances referenced in the presentation, and return findings for future commission discussion. Staff said timing will depend on workload and priorities (staff expects to address an LDC cleanup item first).
