P&Z Watch: Greenwich Drafts Smoke Shop Restrictions after Byram Neighbors Complain

The P&Z commission recently discussed a *draft amendment to zoning regulations to add a new section in concerning smoke shops.

P&Z commission chair Margarita Alban said the proposal was in response to a request from the Byram neighborhood Association.

“It is our great pleasure to go neighborhood associations to hear what people would like to see in the evolution of the town,” Alban said. “The POCD seeks that we maintain the community as our residents want.”

P&Z director Patrick LaRow said the proposed text amendment included a definition of smoke shop, as well as where smoke shops would be allowed based on allowable use groups.

The proposal adds a distance separation requirement of 1,000 ft from another smoke shop and 3,000 ft from schools, religious institutions and hospitals.

LaRow said since 2020, smoke shops had proliferated in Greenwich in response to New York increasing its restrictions on tobacco and nicotine related products, particularly ENDS, which is a nicotine delivery system.

He talked about the proliferation of smoke shops and described them as “nuisance businesses with signage that doesn’t comply.”

“They create a lot of additional work and are not generally an attractive business for the districts they are in,” LaRow said.

New York stopped allowing the sale of flavored ENDS and increased their sales tax again on tobacco and nicotine products.

LaRow said since Connecticut does not have an equal law, the west side of town with its close proximity to New York is attractive to these businesses.

The Tobacconist is located at 8 Havemeyer Place, next to Starbucks. Oct 20, 2025

Attorney Tom Heagney, represented The Tobacconist of Greenwich, proposed an amendment to the proposed regulation to exempt premium cigar stores.

“We’re not selling something that sells for a dollar. They’re not selling cigarettes.They’re not selling vaping. They’re selling handmade cigars, along with humidors and carrying cases.”

Heagney cited a federal district court case in 2023 that includes a definition of cigar stores for consideration in Greenwich’s new regulation, so premium cigar stores would be exempt from the proposed distance requirements.

Commissioner Nick Macri said he was worried a cigar store exemption would create a loophole in the future.

“Instead of ‘primarily,’ maybe the word is ‘solely engage’ …so there is no way someone can sell vape products in front and premium cigars in the back,” Macri said.

Ms Alban said cigar stores often sell high-end cigarettes like Dunhill, as well as accessories to cigar smoking including humidors and clippers.

Ms Alban asked Mr. Heagney to double check his clients offerings so the commission could enable their business while addressing Mr. Macri’s concern.

Mr. Macri suggested using the language in the 2023 federal law.

BNA land use chair Al Shehadi shared Macri’s concern.

He suggested wording a cigar store definition carefully to avoid stores with premium cigars at the front and different items in the back.

He said that after parking and traffic, Byram’s second most frequent complaints concerned smoke shops.

“It’s a neighborhood dis-amenity. Parents who live on North Water Street and walk their kids to New Lebanon School have the pleasure of walking their eight-year-old past all three of those smoke shops and having to field questions about, ‘What’s that in the window, mom?'”

GFP file photo.

Shehadi talked specifically about banning on-site vape use and groups congregating at stores to consume.

He wondered about making a similar distinction between sale and on site consumption that exists for alcohol.

While not mentioning a business by name, he said, “It is a black clothed storefront that you cannot see into. The website intentionally references proximity to the NY state border and the differences in regulation,” Shehadi said. “We want to see more glass, more storefronts, more retail activity. And this is clearly unattractive from a general retail neighborhood perspective, and what is going on behind?”

Mr. LaRow said, “It would appear that covering your windows would not be in accordance with signage regulations.”

LaRow said he was still trying to determine whether tobacco bars and smoking parlors were a permitted use in the State of Connecticut.

Ms Alban suggested asking one of the Greenwich delegation seeking a “LOR” for legislative research in response to LaRow’s questions.

“It’s the only way to do it. How many times have we wondered whether something is legal?” Alban said.

Also, Shehadi said the smoke shops in Byram repeatedly crossed a clear line between legal and illegal items for sale.

He said that in January 2024 Greenwich Police and investigators from the Dept of Consumer Protection investigators found and seized sizeable quantities of illegal THC products for sale at two of the smoke shops in Byram.

In Feb 2025, police and DCP seized more than 1,200 illicit products, including almost 30 pounds of THC products from one of the same shops.

He said the text amendment as proposed was a good first step, but asked that the reg go further.

“I get why you want to grandfather a business, but it is too narrow and leaves an untenable situation in Byram potentially in place potentially for a long time,” he said.

“The sad thing is it’s compliant with state law. We have no choice,” Alban said. “In 2017 the state passed a statute which said people who have non conforming uses had to be allowed to continue.”

She said that was hard to reconcile that law with commission’s directive to reduce non-conformities.

Shehadi’s letter said the vapor lounge in Byram, which he did not mention by name, included a “tasting bar and menu” and “lounge ” for vaping, in addition to retail sale of various products. He said the business website makes clear reference to its location “just over the CT border” from New York where flavored vapes were banned.

Shehadi suggested P&Z regulate smoke shops and vape shops separately and to expand the definition of school t0 prevent them being located within 1,000 ft of any childcare facility.

He also suggested changing “hospital” to any health care institution (hospitals, clinics, nursing homes) and credited the state of Connecticut for that definition of vape free areas

Shehadi had suggested creating some type of “three strikes” provision for existing vape shops and smoke shops that fail to comply with the law – e.g. selling THC products – starting with fines and then losing their “grandfathered” status and closing.

Macri said the distance separations would preclude new smoke shops from opening, but issues with the existing smoke shops should be dealt with by the police and DCP.

“These violations are over and over – it’s a Greenwich Police Dept thing. It’s the state Consumer Protection agency as well. It seems to me a retail establishment that violates the law over and over again needs to be really looked at.”

Alban recommended the BNA contact their state legislators and possibly arrange a meeting with them and local police.

“I think any of them would be happy to help,” she said, mentioning State Rep Steve Meskers and State Senator Ryan Fazio whose districts include Byram. “We’re happy to help with that outreach,” she said.

“The cat’s out of the bag,” Macri said. “There’s three there already and how do we deal the three that are there?”

The item was left open at the end of discussion.