North Canton planning commission sends zoning rewrite to council after debate over smoke shops and data centers

The North Canton Planning Commission on June 3 held a public hearing on Ordinance 16‑2026, a proposed rewrite that would combine industrial and business regulations into a single chapter, create a new "neighborhood business" designation for low‑intensity daytime offices and services, and tighten rules on certain smoke‑shop businesses.

"One of the major components is the establishment of the neighborhood business zoning designation," said Liam, a planning staff member, summarizing the redline changes shown to commissioners. He said the NB designation is intended for uses such as doctors' offices and small professional firms that are compatible with adjacent residential areas.

The draft also proposes removing an older general industrial (GI) layer and folding limited industrial uses into the unified chapter. Staff said the reorganization is mainly housekeeping to simplify the code and improve consistency across commercial districts.

Marty, a staff member from the city administration, highlighted a substantive change: the draft would prohibit cannabis dispensaries consistent with Chapter 513 and would restrict businesses whose primary retail is non‑tobacco nicotine or hemp derivatives. "No parcel will be forcibly reszoned," Marty said, stressing that the proposal is a text change and that parcels would not be automatically reclassified.

Under the proposed smoke‑shop language, a retail business would be considered a prohibited cannabis‑related or non‑tobacco nicotine primary use if such products make up 33% or more of a business's stock or occupy more than 33% of the floor area; traditional tobacco retailers would not be barred.

Commissioners pressed staff on several practical and procedural points. Mr. Sarah asked whether existing CBD and delta‑8 sellers would be grandfathered; staff responded that existing operations would be grandfathered but could not expand past the 33% threshold. Commissioners also raised concerns about the authority given to the director of permits to administratively classify uses not listed in the schedule of permitted uses. Staff explained that uses similar to those already listed would remain at the director level, while uses with potential adverse impacts would be escalated to the planning commission and could be appealed to the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA).

Several commissioners and members of the public urged clearer notice and appeal pathways for neighbors. A staff member noted that many administrative approvals do not trigger mailed notices, and that a neighbor may not learn of an administrative approval in time to file an appeal; commissioners asked staff to examine whether revised language or additional notice requirements could better protect nearby residents.

The meeting included an extended exchange on how to treat data centers. Several commissioners and council members attending or speaking from the public urged that the draft treat data centers as a conditional use, confined mainly to limited industrial (LI) areas, and that the city adopt clearer definitions tied to scale and power consumption. Jeff Stalker (City Council, at‑large) asked whether data centers should instead be addressed directly by ordinance; staff advised that treating them as a conditional LI use in the zoning chapter would be appropriate while acknowledging that an ordinance could add further restrictions.

Resident Lydia Got urged caution: "I'm assuming that that's how it would...that it can be reviewed and that the public can have a say in something like that," she said, telling commissioners she worries large data centers could be permitted without adequate public input.

After public comment and further discussion of mixed‑use rules (including how "upper floor" multifamily or live/work units should be treated), drive‑through standards, flagpole height limits and dumpster screening, Commissioner Mr. Moy moved to send the draft to city council for review and resubmittal to planning commission. The motion — to forward the draft with edits and bring an edited version back to planning commission for additional review — passed on a roll‑call vote with Mr. Leage, Mr. Sarah, Mr. Mahousen and Mr. Dpes voting yes.

Next steps: staff will collect the commission's comments, forward the draft and suggested edits to city council for their three readings and possible amendments, and then return a revised draft to planning commission for further consideration.

Actions recorded at the hearing included a motion to forward the draft to council with edits and return it to planning commission for subsequent review and amendment.