02-08-2012 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MINUTES CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 8, 2012 tobacco stores. There was also some discussion on the State- mandated fines for the sale of tobacco to minors. Montour clarified that the grandfathering in of the two existing tobacco stores so that they can continue to allow sampling is specific to both the owners of the two existing stores as well as their current locations. The City Attorney reported that that was correct. He indicated that the grandfathering will allow these businesses to continue to operate as they are and in their same locations. There was some discussion of the grandfathering in of non- conforming uses, with the City Attorney noting that those are situations of land use and common when zoning changes are made. In the case of non- conforming uses, a business is allowed to continue its use of the property and allowed to make building repairs, but not allowed to intensify or expand the use. With regard to the fine schedule in Section 9 802.090. (a), Nelson questioned the need for this provision. The City Attorney replied that this provision is being proposed to allow for an administration fine, suspension, or revocation for other provisions of the ordinance other than the sale of tobacco to minors or allowing minors to sample tobacco. John DeRosa, Little Canada Smoke Shop, stated that he did not agree with the restriction that he would not be able to move or sell his business. Blesener pointed out that the prohibition is on sampling. DeRosa would be able to move or sell his business, but if he did so, the only change would be that he would no longer be able to allow sampling. DeRosa clarified that he under the new ordinance, he would have to keep the sale of tobacco- related devices to under 50% of his gross revenue. The City Attorney replied that that was correct. Nelson stated that he never intentionally intended his business to stir up a hornet's nest. His intention was to open up a business and live the American Dream. Blesener stated that he would support the ordinance amendment with the clarification of the definition of "Tobacco - related device ". Blesener stated that his feeling is that what The Hookah Hideout is doing is taking advantage of a loophole in State Law. Blesener felt this ordinance amendment was a compromise in that it would allow The Hookah Hideout to continue to operate in its present location, under its present ownership /management, and under its present business model. Mr. Blesener introduced the following resolution and moved its adoption: 6