Danbury Ad Hoc Committee Meeting on Proposed Vape Shop Establishment Ordinance - October 19, 2026

On October 19, 2026, the Danbury City Council Ad Hoc Committee met at 6:30 p.m. to review amended draft language for a new Ordinance Sec. 16-320 et seq. regulating vape shop establishments. Chair Frank Salvatore presided, joined by Councilwoman Diane Lepine and Councilman Mike Henry. Corporation Counsel presented the ordinance, and representatives from the mayor's office, Health Department, and Police Department answered questions. No public comment period was held; Corporation Counsel noted that earlier public comments had prompted the definition changes. The committee voted unanimously to send the amended ordinance to the City Council for public hearing.

Discussion Items

• Proposed ordinance overview: Corporation Counsel explained the ordinance would establish a local business license for vape shops under the city's police power, in addition to state licensing, to combat illegal sales of tobacco, unregulated cannabis/THC products, controlled substances, and sales to minors. The definition of vape shop establishment covers premises with more than 25% of gross floor area devoted to tobacco/vape retail sales or more than 50% of gross sales derived from such products, and it mirrors the city's zoning definition.
• Revisions from earlier draft: Corporation Counsel reported changes based on prior public comments: cigar shops were removed from the exception list because tobacco is their primary, not ancillary, sale; the term retailer was changed to dealer to match Connecticut General Statutes language; and the definition of vaporized tobacco and smoking products was clarified to exclude medicinal/therapeutic products used by licensed health care providers.
• License and enforcement framework: The license would be issued by the Department of Health and Human Services; existing shops must obtain one within 90 days; licenses are non-transferable and must be posted. Applications would require a $250 fee, ownership disclosure, criminal background checks, fingerprinting, proof of state licenses, store layout, compliance checks, a staff-training affidavit, and a $5,000 cash bond or letter of credit. Not covered: convenience stores, gas stations, cannabis establishments, grocery stores, and medical/prescribed products. Other provisions: no sales to under-21 patrons, ID checks for anyone appearing under 30, required signage and license posting, a hard prohibition on selling marijuana, cannabis, narcotics, or controlled substances with automatic license revocation for such sales, inspections by health or police at reasonable times, manager-on-site requirement, no unaccompanied minors under 18, and no blocked windows.
• Penalties: First violation is a $250 fine; second violation within 12 months results in a six-month license suspension; third violation within 24 months results in revocation; each day of violation counts separately; no new license may be issued for two years after revocation. The ordinance provides notice, a 10-day request for hearing, a citation hearing officer, right to counsel, and court injunction authority, in addition to state action under CGS § 21a-420(e)(3).
• Mayor's office comments: The mayor's office representative supported the ordinance as a needed regulatory tool. He said there are about 25 known vape shops with active, pending, or lapsed state licenses. A zoning commission moratorium defining smoke shops has made current shops non-conforming and grandfathered, so no new vape shops can currently open. He noted the $250 first-offense fine was designed to be consistent with other city fines and not punitive.
• Health Department comments: Health Department staff stressed protection of public health and said the ordinance provides a clear, consistent, and enforceable framework. Citing 2023 state data, 11.5% of Connecticut high school students were currently vaping, and 69.1% of those reported using electronic vapor products to vape cannabis. The department has about 10 inspectors and currently enough staffing; it plans to shift work to a staff member who previously enforced a similar ordinance in New Haven and could use grant-funded staff. No state certification is required for enforcing this ordinance, unlike food inspections.
• Police Department comments: The Police Chief and Detective Sergeant Castrovinci expressed strong support, saying the ordinance gives local enforcement an additional tool beyond state action. The detective sergeant reported that school resource officers have handled more than 200 incidents involving vape products in Danbury schools over the last two years, including 155 opened cases from August 2024 to the present and about 50-60 additional calls where no products were found. He emphasized that products are often packaged to appeal to children and that the ordinance creates accountability through staff-training affidavits and the $5,000 bond.
• Committee questions and answers: Council members asked about relying on state enforcement; Corporation Counsel responded that local licensing gives faster, direct entry and civil enforcement. The health department licensing model was chosen over police-issued permits because the ordinance addresses broader public health and business compliance, not just illicit activity. Committee members asked about proactive versus complaint-based inspections; officials indicated a joint training and proactive inspection approach. Corporation Counsel said the draft does not currently impose landlord liability, but tax-compliance language could be added.
• Housekeeping and amendments directed: Council President noted technical corrections: the Article One General Provisions header should not appear under Article 10, and the word width was missing from item 7. The committee directed Corporation Counsel to add language to Section 16-323(e)(4) and renewal sections requiring that personal property tax declarations and payments be current, as verified by the tax collector and assessor, and for any other delinquent city taxes, water, or sewer charges when applicable. A council member who could not attend, referred to as Councilman Sheanne, proposed this addition.

Key Outcomes

• Councilwoman Diane Lepine moved that the vape shop establishment ordinance, as amended and subsequently amended at the ad hoc on October 19, 2026, be sent to the city council to be moved to a public hearing. The motion was seconded and passed unanimously; no opposing votes were recorded.
• Corporation Counsel was directed to incorporate the noted technical and tax-compliance amendments before the ordinance goes to the City Council for public hearing.
• The meeting adjourned after the vote.