Centerville planners continue debate over body art zoning; staff directed to revise definitions and return

The Centerville Planning Commission continued a work-session discussion April 23 on draft zoning changes to regulate body art facilities — a category that would cover tattooing, body piercing and related procedures — and asked staff to revise definitions and the table of permitted zones and return for further review and a subsequent public hearing.

Community Development staff summarized a review of seven nearby municipalities and county guidance and told commissioners that only a few (notably Bountiful and Layton) explicitly address tattoo or body art uses in their zoning codes. Staff recommended separating “permanent cosmetics” (procedures such as microblading that require periodic touch-ups) from body art facilities and treating the two uses differently in the zoning matrix: permanent cosmetics treated as a personal-care line item in commercial zones, and body art facilities allowed only in selected industrial zones (Industrial High and Industrial Very High) and specified Planned Development Overlay (PDO) areas such as Legacy Crossing.

Staff noted legal context discussed in the meeting: federal appellate decisions in some circuits treat tattooing as expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment, meaning a total ban risks legal challenge; Utah is in the Tenth Circuit, where no controlling Utah case on that issue was cited in the meeting. Staff also said Davis County regulations prohibit branding and scarification and that municipalities vary widely in approach.

Commissioners discussed the practical and legal trade-offs. Some commissioners said they favored permitting body art more broadly in commercial districts and treating permanent cosmetics the same as other personal-care services. Others supported staff’s cautious approach—allowing body art only in industrial zones or specific PDOs—citing proximity to residential areas, gateway corridors and the city’s long-term land-use plan. Several commissioners suggested improving the city’s conditional-use language before relying on CUPs to regulate the activity, and staff agreed the city’s conditional-use ordinance needs clarity about when conditions may be imposed to mitigate “detrimental impacts.”

There was no formal vote. Commissioners asked staff to: revise the permanent-cosmetics definition to match clearer language used by cities such as Layton; consider pulling permanent cosmetics out of a broad “personal care” category into its own line item; prepare an updated table of uses showing either a permitted or conditional designation for the proposed categories; and return to the commission for one more work session before a public hearing. Staff said it will prepare revised code language and zoning maps and bring those back for additional discussion and a public hearing if the commission wishes.

The discussion was technical and procedural: staff requested direction on which zones the commission would prefer for body art facilities and whether the commission prefers the use be permitted or conditional in those zones. Commissioners expressed differing views but agreed to see revised language and maps before a formal hearing.