Centerville council adopts zoning change to allow body art and permanent cosmetics, excluding South Main Street overlay

Centerville City Council voted 3-2 on Aug. 19 to adopt zoning code text amendments (Ordinance 2025-07) that permit body art facilities and permanent cosmetics in the city’s commercial zones, while excluding properties inside the South Main Street corridor overlay.

The ordinance changes Centerville Zoning Code sections 12.12.040 and 12.36.040 and adds section 12.55.260 to allow body art facilities and permanent cosmetics as permitted uses in the commercial medium, commercial high and commercial very high zones, except on properties located in the South Main Street overlay. The planning commission had recommended conditional-use treatment for some zones; staff’s proposal makes the uses permitted in the listed commercial zones.

Council and staff said the amendment responds to an applicant’s request and a planning commission review that included multiple public hearings. Supporters argued the change fills a gap in the land-use code and creates clear rules for businesses; opponents raised constitutional, aesthetic and public-policy concerns and noted the city has received a demand letter from the ACLU of Utah.

City planner Mike (staff) summarized the process, saying the request began last year, was reviewed repeatedly by the planning commission and sent to council with proposed findings and legal review by City Attorney Lisa Romney. "There was a now updated recommendation with, supported findings in the packet as a recommendation or guidance on what the council may or may not discuss," Mike said during his presentation.

Resident John Boyer, who said he attended the July hearing, urged the council to consider the existing commercial uses on South Main Street. "I see a car wash and an empty Maverik and a Taco Time and a medical facility, a car dealership," Boyer said. "Within that salon, I see salon services being offered…permanent makeup and body art as well. I see no reasonable interpretation that granting [the code change] would disrupt the nature and tenor of the corridor."

In a lengthy legal analysis during council discussion, a councilmember who identified constitutional concerns argued tattooing is protected speech and that the ordinance as drafted differentiated between allowable "permanent cosmetics" (defined in the draft as designs that resemble makeup) and other tattoos by reference to the design, which he said is a content-based distinction. "Tattoos are protected first amendment speech," the councilmember said. He proposed narrower alternatives — for example, requiring that tattooing be performed behind screening — and cited a demand letter from the ACLU of Utah as a financial risk to the city if the ordinance were upheld and then litigated. "I am going to be voting against this proposed ordinance," he said, citing both constitutional and fiscal concerns.

Other council members rejected that view, saying the ordinance balances free-speech protections with the city’s interest in preserving the historic character of Main Street and insulating adjacent residential areas from incompatible commercial uses. Several council members noted the ordinance excludes the South Main Street overlay, which includes the Dual Creek Historic District, and stressed that some long-standing commercial uses on Main Street are grandfathered and would not be newly permitted.

Councilmember (mover) made a motion to approve the zoning code text amendments and adopt Ordinance 2025-07 as included in the packet; the motion was seconded. On a roll-call vote the motion passed 3 to 2. The council did not specify an effective date for the ordinance in the discussion recorded on the public transcript.

The council’s action replaces the planning commission’s conditional-use recommendation with a staff-drafted ordinance that permits body art and permanent cosmetics in the stated commercial zones but specifically excludes the South Main Street corridor overlay. The packet submitted to council included proposed findings (numbered 1–45) and legal analysis prepared with the city attorney’s office and outside counsel.

The council’s vote resolves a multi-month process that began with an applicant request and multiple planning-commission meetings. Councilmembers said the city will rely on the adopted code language and the accompanying findings to guide future applications; opponents said they expect possible legal challenge and recommended alternatives such as screening requirements to limit public exposure while preserving speech rights.

Centerville staff said the amendment will be implemented through the city’s standard building- and business-permit procedures. The transcript does not record a final effective date for the ordinance or any immediate enforcement actions, and no court challenge had been filed in the public record at the time of the meeting.

(End)