Planning board asks staff to define cigar bars and on-site-consumption facilities before recommending vape-shop rule

The Southport Planning Board on Nov. 20 reviewed a proposed UDO text amendment (ZTA-25-5) that would create a new land-use category for vape and tobacco retail outlets and set minimum-location and use standards. Planner Wendell said the amendment would define a "vape tobacco shop" as "a retail establishment where 30% or more retail floor area or total sales is dedicated to ecigarettes, vaporizers, nicotine products, kratom, CBD, hookahs, and other smoking paraphernalia." He described four proposed standards: at least 1,000 feet from schools, day cares, youth facilities, community centers, city parks, hospitals or places of worship; not within 500 feet of residentially zoned property; not within 1,000 feet of another vape-tobacco shop; and signage that meets section 3.19 of the ordinance.

Board members questioned how the threshold would be measured and enforced. "How are you gonna determine total sales? Are we talking audited statements or a lunch bag full of receipts?" the chair asked; Wendell said staff would use the retail-floor-area test as an alternative and noted North Carolina sales-tax records could help show product breakdowns. Board members also raised enforcement and nonconformity concerns for existing shops: Wendell said an existing shop that remains in continuous operation would be grandfathered, but a business that ceases for 181 days would lose its nonconforming status and the new owner would need a special-use permit if the Board of Aldermen adopts the amendment.

A substantial point of contention was whether cigar bars or lounges that permit on-site consumption should be treated the same as retail vape shops. Maria Horton urged distinguishing cigar bars from retail vape/tobacco shops, saying, "I think of smoking and drinking high ... That is much different than, hey, I'm having CBD and kratom." Several members worried that owners could avoid the 30% threshold by placing tobacco products in nonretail back rooms and still offer on-site consumption.

Rather than finalizing a recommendation to the Board of Aldermen, the board voted to ask staff to develop a separate definition for facilities with on-site consumption (for example, cigar bars or vape bars) so the board can decide whether to include them in the UDO or exclude them. John moved the request and Maria Horton seconded; the motion carried unanimously. The board did not vote on ZTA-25-5 itself and signaled it will revisit the amendment after staff returns with clarified definitions and any suggested language changes to address measurement and enforcement.

If adopted later, Wendell said the amendment would require special-use permits from the Board of Adjustment and apply the four standards at the permitting stage. Next steps: staff will draft the on-site-consumption definition and, depending on that language, the board will consider whether to recommend the text amendment to the Board of Aldermen.