Planning commission recommends denial of massage‑salon special use permit at 727 Harwood Road

The Bedford Planning and Zoning Commission on Sept. 11 voted to recommend denial of Specific Use Permit SUP25‑13, an application to allow a massage salon at 727 Harwood Road.

Staff presented the application as a request for a specific use permit for a 2,510‑square‑foot suite in an existing one‑story shopping center at the northeast corner of Brown Trail and Harwood Road. Planning staff said the location previously operated as a massage salon, but the property had been vacant long enough that it lost its nonconforming status under the zoning code; staff cited a vacancy period of more than three months and referenced the zoning ordinance provision on loss of nonconformity. Staff also reported one written response in opposition and several phone inquiries that were not in favor.

The issue matters because, under the city zoning code, massage establishments in commercial districts require approval through a specific use permit when a prior nonconforming use has been discontinued. Planning staff told commissioners the city currently has eight licensed massage establishments and six pending applications recorded with the police department, which staff said yields 14 locations with licenses or pending applications in city limits.

At the public hearing, applicant representatives and business supporters said the proposed salon operator runs two other licensed massage businesses in the region and described the site as already built out for spa use. Chadwick Stiles, who identified himself as having family ties to the proposed operator, said the prior fit‑out would reduce build‑out costs and allow the business to open quickly. Supporter Yoke Ching Po, who said she owns a massage business in the Austin area, urged the commission to consider the applicant’s licensing record and professionalism.

Commission discussion focused on land‑use consistency with the comprehensive plan and the city’s adopted future‑land‑use map. One commissioner said the site’s place‑focused commercial designation did not align with the proposed use for that location. After closing the public hearing, a motion to deny SUP25‑13 was made and seconded; the commission voted to recommend denial and will forward the recommendation to the city council for final action.

The recommendation to deny does not itself prohibit the applicant from seeking other remedies (such as a different location or a new application); it forwards the planning commission’s recommendation to the City Council for its decision.

Votes at the meeting: the commission voted to recommend denial of SUP25‑13; the motion to deny was made from the floor, seconded, and the recommendation will proceed to the city council.