Council keeps vape and smoke-shop zoning and licensing bills in committee for more work
October 30, 2025 | York City, York County, Pennsylvania
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
The council committee voted to retain two related measures — an amendment to Part 13 of the zoning code and a new Article 324 licensing ordinance governing vape and smoke shops — in committee for further drafting after public comment and input from the Planning Commission.
Solicitor and staff presented a zoning amendment that would establish a 500-foot proximity limitation for new vape/smoke shops in certain circumstances and a companion licensing ordinance that adds annual inspections, fee requirements and restrictions on self-service and advertising display. The licensing text also specifies inspection and recordkeeping obligations and includes a prohibition on self-service sales for tobacco and related products.
Planning Commission members, who reviewed the proposal earlier, expressed concern that the measure lacked a strong data-driven foundation, that the 500-foot buffer was broad and might raise enforceability issues, and that the legislation could create unintended impacts on small, mixed-use or convenience stores. Several councilmembers and members of the public raised litigation risk and constitutional concerns (including First Amendment and other legal questions) and asked whether the city had a solicitor-provided litigation-risk analysis. One public commenter cited federal and precedent cases and warned the city might face legal challenges.
Councilmembers asked staff to align the zoning and licensing language so enforcement is consistent and to clarify who would perform inspections and who pays associated inspection fees. After discussion, council voted to keep both the zoning amendment (Part 13) and the companion licensing ordinance (Article 324) in committee for additional revision and to respond to Planning Commission and public concerns.
Next steps: staff and the solicitor will revise the drafts to address Planning Commission input, enforcement clarity, inspection procedures and any solicitor guidance on litigation risk. The bills will return to committee for further consideration before any legislative vote.
Solicitor and staff presented a zoning amendment that would establish a 500-foot proximity limitation for new vape/smoke shops in certain circumstances and a companion licensing ordinance that adds annual inspections, fee requirements and restrictions on self-service and advertising display. The licensing text also specifies inspection and recordkeeping obligations and includes a prohibition on self-service sales for tobacco and related products.
Planning Commission members, who reviewed the proposal earlier, expressed concern that the measure lacked a strong data-driven foundation, that the 500-foot buffer was broad and might raise enforceability issues, and that the legislation could create unintended impacts on small, mixed-use or convenience stores. Several councilmembers and members of the public raised litigation risk and constitutional concerns (including First Amendment and other legal questions) and asked whether the city had a solicitor-provided litigation-risk analysis. One public commenter cited federal and precedent cases and warned the city might face legal challenges.
Councilmembers asked staff to align the zoning and licensing language so enforcement is consistent and to clarify who would perform inspections and who pays associated inspection fees. After discussion, council voted to keep both the zoning amendment (Part 13) and the companion licensing ordinance (Article 324) in committee for additional revision and to respond to Planning Commission and public concerns.
Next steps: staff and the solicitor will revise the drafts to address Planning Commission input, enforcement clarity, inspection procedures and any solicitor guidance on litigation risk. The bills will return to committee for further consideration before any legislative vote.
View full meeting
This article is based on a recent meeting—watch the full video and explore the complete transcript for deeper insights into the discussion.
View full meeting