Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Smoking Regulation topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board asks staff to broaden cannabis draft into general smoking restrictions; revised draft due May 26

Village of Mamaroneck Board of Trustees · May 13, 2026
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

Trustee Steve’s initial draft local law focused on cannabis, but trustees said they want time‑place‑manner rules to apply to smoking generally (tobacco, vaping and cannabis). Police reported enforcement gaps; staff will return a revised draft for the May 26 meeting.

Trustee Steve (speaker 3), who drafted a proposed local law addressing public use of cannabis, told the Board the initial text targeted cannabis specifically but the Board prefers broader, time‑place‑and‑manner limits that would apply to smoking generally, including tobacco, vaping and cannabis. He said municipalities may impose such restrictions and offered to produce an updated draft for the next legislative meeting.

Chair (speaker 1) and other trustees said the Police Department had signaled it lacks clear enforcement authority for complaints about smoking in parks, parking lots and other public spaces. Trustee 4 raised concern about the penalties in the draft — staff cited a sample provision that included a $250 fine and a possible short jail term; trustees asked staff to consider lowering maximum penalties and to align the new language with existing smoking provisions already in the code.

Steve said the code already contains a smoking section and recommended bolstering that part of the ordinance so enforcement language covers tobacco, vaping and cannabis uniformly rather than isolating cannabis in a standalone law. The board reached consensus to have staff rework the draft and return it for the May 26 legislative meeting, keeping the matter on the consent agenda if trustees are comfortable with the revised language.

The discussion produced no formal vote on policy at the work session; trustees requested the redrafted local law and additional enforcement‑language options for review. The Board also noted that any changes would be placed on the May 26 agenda for a public legislative hearing and formal action.