Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council introduces special‑use permit for cigar lounge but bars on on‑premise alcohol pending ordinance changes
Summary
After debate over conflicting code definitions, the City Council voted to close the public hearing and introduce a special‑use ordinance for a cigar lounge at 2411 Jackal Road with a restriction against on‑premise alcohol; the applicant argued the land‑development code allows alcohol under limits, while legal staff cited the health code prohibition.
The City of Laredo council on Nov. 17 introduced a special‑use ordinance for a proposed cigar lounge at 2411 Jackal Road but directed it to proceed without on‑premise alcohol until city code is reconciled.
Applicant Geronio Terino told the council his business model is a cigar lounge whose primary sales would be tobacco products and that the 2013 land‑development code defines cigar lounges (smoking establishments) with HVAC and a threshold allowing some alcohol sales so long as alcohol is not the primary product. Terino asked the council to remove a condition (condition 20) that would categorically prohibit on‑premise alcohol.
City staff and the city attorney disagreed. Legal counsel advised the council that where two municipal codes conflict, the more stringent standard controls and that the health code (a 2004 ordinance broadly prohibiting indoor smoking in places serving alcohol) is the controlling regulation. Planning staff also cited an 800‑foot buffer requirement that could affect proximity to residential zones and schools.
Council decision and next steps: The council voted to close the public hearing and introduce the measure as written but without allowing on‑premise alcohol; members said the applicant may open under those conditions and then pursue a separate ordinance change if the council chooses (an ordinance change would require three readings). Staff advised that enforcement tools and monitoring (HVAC verification and sales reporting) would remain available to ensure compliance.
Why it matters: The vote balances business investment and public‑health code compliance. Councilmembers said they want to be business‑friendly but are constrained by existing health and land‑development code language and are open to studying a possible carve‑out through the ordinance process.
What was on the record: The Planning & Zoning Commission recommended approval for the cigar lounge but with no on‑premise alcohol; staff originally recommended the application not be supported because of health‑code conflicts. Applicant Terino presented evidence from the land development code and asked for equal treatment compared to adjacent tobacco businesses; planning and legal staff warned that approving alcohol would violate the health code as written.
Outcome: The council introduced the ordinance with the restriction and passed the motion to proceed; the applicant may return if an ordinance change is pursued.
