Centerville council hears hours of public comment on proposed 'body art facility' zoning; council denies immediate Main Street change

Centerville City Council on Feb. 18 heard more than two hours of public comment and staff presentations on a proposed zoning text amendment that would add a “body art facility” category and a narrow “fine line tattoos and cosmetics” definition to the municipal code.

Mike Eggert, the city’s community development director, told the council the November planning‑commission hearing had recommended denial by a 4–0 vote and that staff had worked with the applicant and city staff to craft several narrower definitions and text edits after the earlier meeting.

Why it matters: staff said the changes were intended to align Centerville’s definitions with Davis County and state terminology, to clarify that permanent cosmetics (eyebrows, eyeliner, lips) are regulated separately, and to give the council choices about where different categories would be permitted — for example, limiting larger body‑art uses to higher‑intensity commercial and industrial zones while allowing narrowly defined fine‑line work in personal‑care settings.

Applicant and public comments

Nicole Hutchins, the applicant and a Centerville resident who said she works at New Trends salon, told the council she currently performs permanent cosmetics (eyebrows, eyeliner and lips) with the same equipment she would use for small “fine line” designs and asked that the code allow those small designs to be performed in a salon setting. She said such work requires the same training, hygiene and certification that the county and state already require for permanent cosmetics: “If I am already trusted to use the same tools and follow the same health regulations to tattoo eyebrows, lips, and eyeliner, why should a small meaningful design elsewhere on the body be treated any differently?”

Supporters and opponents appeared from across Centerville and nearby communities. Public commenters who supported the change described the work as a professional cosmetic service, cited economic benefits for a long‑standing Main Street business and said the applicant already performs permanent cosmetics at the salon. Opponents expressed concern about changing Main Street uses while the city is rewriting its general plan, worried about the effect on nearby professional businesses and asked whether allowing fine‑line work on Main Street would open the door to larger tattoo businesses or commercial changes the council had previously declined.

Staff recommendations and legal context

Eggert and a city staff member identified as Lisa (staff) said the proposed code language aligns with Davis County definitions and noted that federal appellate courts have found total bans on tattoo businesses raise First Amendment issues in some circuits. Lisa said she had not found binding Tenth Circuit precedent for Utah but told the council she included a regulatory section linking city oversight to county and state regulation to avoid duplicative or overly strict local regulation.

Council discussion and outcome

Council members debated two concerns: the risk of a legal challenge if the city left no zone that permitted some form of tattooing, and the land‑use question of whether Main Street — which is a low‑intensity, mixed commercial district with adjacent single‑family homes — is an appropriate place for new body‑art uses. Several council members said they supported finding a place in the city where regulated body‑art businesses could operate, but not necessarily on Main Street.

The council considered a motion that would have approved a staff‑revised ordinance (cited as Ordinance 2025‑03 in the meeting) with narrower definitions (limiting fine‑line tattooing to single‑needle configurations and to salon or beauty‑shop settings, and permitting larger “body art facility” uses only in higher‑intensity commercial or industrial zones as a conditional use). That motion failed.

A later motion to deny the proposed text amendments carried; council members adopted staff findings referenced during the meeting and directed staff to revisit where “body art facility” uses could be allowed elsewhere in the city before returning with a revised approach. The council also asked staff to develop options that would reduce the city’s exposure to legal challenge while preserving the existing regulatory framework for permanent cosmetic services.

What council members and staff noted

- Planning commission: Eggert said the planning commission recommended denial (4–0) at its October hearing because commissioners found the applicant’s original language overly broad and difficult to administer.

- Enforcement and regulation: staff noted Davis County and Utah state health and sanitation standards apply; the proposed text linked city regulation to those existing frameworks and included a regulatory paragraph to clarify enforcement responsibility.

- Public records and next steps: council members asked staff to return with mapped zoning options for where a “body art facility” could be permitted (staff noted commercial‑very‑high and industrial areas as preliminary locations) and with findings and draft language before any final code change would be adopted.

Direct quotes from the meeting are limited to speakers who appeared on the record. Eggert summarized the planning commission record: “The voting record from the planning commission at the time was a recommendation for denial of a 4 to 0 vote,” noting the commission found the applicant’s earlier submittal too broad. Applicant Nicole Hutchins told the council, “If I am already trusted to use the same tools and follow the same health regulations to tattoo eyebrows, lips, and eyeliner, why should a small meaningful design elsewhere on the body be treated any differently?”

Ending

Council members agreed to revisit the issue at a future meeting with staff‑prepared zoning maps and draft language that would identify appropriate commercial or industrial locations so the city is not left without any authorized zone for regulated body‑art services while also protecting the existing character of Main Street.