Michigan City BZA approves variances for tattoo studio at 3515 Franklin St.

The Michigan City Board of Zoning Appeals on Feb. 11 approved a development standards variance and a special exception use allowing a tattoo establishment at 3515 Franklin Street Building A1.

The board voted unanimously to approve both petitions associated with B-107-24, clearing the way for petitioner Jacqueline Scarborough to convert a previously used hair salon space into a tattoo studio, subject to conditions in the planning department report, including a requirement that the business not operate past 10 p.m.

The approvals matter because the property sits within 100 feet of residential districts on both the east and west sides, and the city zoning ordinance requires a special exception for tattoo establishments plus a variance when the 100-foot separation is not met.

Sylvia Martin, planning department staff, presented the planning report and the department's recommendation for approval. Martin said the site is zoned B-2 (General Commercial) but the property sits within the ordinance's 100-foot distance requirement to residential districts. The planning report noted the petitioner requests a developmental standards variance to allow the business to be located 79 feet from the residential district on the east and 57 feet from the residential district on the west, and the department concluded the site’s existing configuration, lack of structural changes, and parking availability support approval.

Petitioner Jacqueline Scarborough described her background and plans. “I have a bachelor's degree in visual arts...I've been tattooing for about 4 years,” Scarborough said, and added she intends to partner with schools and nonprofits and to hire local employees. Scarborough told the board the space already contains three booths and two sinks outside the bathroom, and she said the property provides five parking spaces in front and 14 in the rear.

During public comment, Scott Mellentura of Kenwood Place urged approval and argued the ordinance’s restriction treated tattoo shops differently from other personal-services businesses. “The bias against tattoo shops seems to be a hangover from the past,” Mellentura said, and he called the location appropriate and a positive local investment.

Board discussion focused on procedure and conditions. Attorney Chris Hale (attorney for the board) and Martin advised the board to consider the two actions separately — first the development standards variance, then the special exception use — because each has different legal standards. Hale said the motion should include the conditions and the planning department’s findings as part of the record.

A motion to approve the development standards variance B-107-24, including the condition that the business not operate after 10 p.m., was made by Mister Gross and seconded by Deborah Vance. The roll-call vote was Jackson — yes; Clender — yes; Stransky — yes; Vance — yes; Gross — yes.

A subsequent motion to approve the special exception use B-107-24, adopting the planning department’s findings and the same operating-hours condition, was made by Mister Clender and seconded by Deborah Vance. The roll-call vote was Jackson — yes; Clender — yes; Stransky — yes; Vance — yes; Gross — yes. The board chair congratulated the petitioner after the votes.

Conditions noted by planning staff and included in the approvals require that the special exception comply with section 14.04(b) of the zoning ordinance and with other use-specific regulations; the site must not be within 1,000 feet of an adult-regulated use (the department found this requirement met); and the planning department recommended limiting operating hours to no later than 10 p.m.

Scarborough and the board confirmed subsequent inspections and approvals from the health department, fire marshal and building/inspection departments will still be required before full operation; planning staff said it has been the board’s practice to allow petitioners to act on approvals the night of the meeting so permitting activity may proceed consistent with applicable recording and permitting rules.

The board’s approval does not change the underlying zoning of the property; it authorizes the petitioner to operate a tattoo establishment at Building A1 only, subject to the conditions noted in the planning report and the board’s adopted findings.

Scarborough said she planned to proceed with required follow-up steps including health and building inspections and any necessary county recording or permitting.