Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council rejects proposed vape/convenience shop at 1800 Dalrock after public hearing
Summary
After staff presentation and public comment, council failed to approve a special‑use permit for a vape/convenience store at 1800 Dalrock Road; concerns cited included youth vaping risks, compatibility with Bayside community vision, and prior council resolution restricting proliferation of vape/CBD sellers.
The council considered a request by Roberto Nunez (speaker 19) on behalf of property owner 1800 Dalrock LLC for a special‑use permit to allow a vape/convenience store at 1800 Dalrock Road (Suite 400). Community Development Director Derek Hall (speaker 13) reviewed staff analysis, including an earlier ordinance (027‑22) that requires SUPs for businesses selling electronic cigarettes and CBD products and staff's finding of approximately 12 similar stores operating in Rowlett.
Applicant Roberto Nunez said the business would operate primarily as a vape shop and described security measures used at an existing Plano location. "This is gonna be not a smoke shop. This is a vape shop," Nunez said, noting updated product‑mix percentages.
During the public hearing Tiffany Gilmore (speaker 20), a Bayside resident and educator, opposed the SUP, citing neighborhood character and youth impacts. "Our community is already saturated with vape shops ... As an educator, I see the first‑hand negative impact that vaping has on families, specifically children," she said.
Council debate included references to the 2022 ordinance recital that said proliferation of such shops can reduce public safety, property values and contribute to urban blight; one council member cited a police chief's assessment linking vape/smoke shops to increased crime and juvenile incidents. A motion to approve the ordinance was made by Councilmember Reeves and seconded by Councilmember Bowers; the motion failed by a vote of five no and one yes (5‑no, 1‑yes). The record shows staff had received no neighborhood notices in favor and multiple online comments during the review period.
Because the council did not approve the ordinance, the SUP request remains denied (the motion to approve failed).
