Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Body Art topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Centerville council tables body-art zoning ordinance after First Amendment concerns
Summary
On July 1 the Centerville City Council voted 4-1 to table proposed zoning-code changes (Ordinance 2025-07) that would add definitions and land‑use rules for body art facilities and permanent cosmetics, directing staff to research legal issues including First Amendment implications.
The Centerville City Council voted 4-1 on July 1 to table proposed zoning-code text amendments in Ordinance 2025-07 that would add definitions and land‑use rules for body art facilities and permanent cosmetics, and to direct staff to research associated legal questions before the council takes further action.
The ordinance package, forwarded to the council by the Planning Commission, would create a new definition for “body art facilities,” separate “permanent cosmetics” from the city’s definition of “personal care services,” add permanent cosmetics as a permitted use in commercial and industrial zones and make body art facilities conditional uses in identified industrial zones, and remove the “tattoo establishment” line from the commercial table of uses. The Planning Commission recommended the changes by a 5-0 vote at its May 28 meeting.
Planning staff summarized the commission’s work and the draft ordinance for the council. Mike Avgett, a city planning staffer, told the council the commission began work March 12, reviewed peer-city codes on April 9 and April 23, and again considered language on May 14 before holding and advertising the May 28 public hearing. Avgett said the package includes a code cross‑reference, CCC 12.55.260, directing administration of body art facilities and permanent cosmetics as guided by the Davis County Department of Health.
The council heard two public comments during the hearing. Abby Cook, a staff attorney at the ACLU of Utah, urged the council to consider constitutional limits on restricting tattooing. “There are serious First Amendment concerns when you restrict the practice of tattooing,” Cook said, adding that courts have frequently treated tattooing and related commercial activity as protected speech. An online commenter who identified themself as JT, a nonresident, said they supported the local business owner and voiced concerns about community acceptance and harassment directed at the business operator.
Council discussion acknowledged both zoning and constitutional questions. Councilman Plummer moved to table the proposed amendments “until such time as the staff needs to be to be determined,” and asked staff to research legal issues raised during the hearing; the motion was seconded. The motion passed 4-1. The council’s motion text specifically referenced Centerville zoning code sections and associated amendments as presented by city staff and the city attorney.
The council packet includes the Planning Commission staff report, the proposed ordinance language, the revised table of uses, and a research appendix that compares language from other Davis County cities (Avgett said Layton was an example with a permanent‑cosmetics ordinance the commission reviewed). Avgett also told the council the planning commission had little public attendance at its advertised May 28 hearing and no written comments before that meeting.
Next steps are procedural: staff will gather additional legal analysis and information requested by the council and return the matter for future consideration. The council motion did not set a firm date for reconsideration; the motion as adopted leaves timing “to be determined” based on staff needs and legal review.
