Kenosha committee recommends denial of proposed massage establishment over safety and code concerns

The Kenosha Licensing & Permit Committee on July 9 recommended denial of the application by Chi Shat Song for a massage‑establishment license at 3717‑50 Second Street, citing safety and municipal‑code concerns after an extended applicant hearing and public questioning.

The applicant’s representative and a supporter described the business as a small, professional massage operation run by a licensed massage therapist. Supporter John Kervis told the committee the applicant is a licensed provider and that he had driven from out of town to support her, saying, “She’s a licensed massage therapist…she’s been in business a long time.”

Committee members and several attendees pressed the applicant on operational details: the business proposed one massage room plus a second treatment space, hours of 9 a.m.–8 p.m., seven days a week, no dedicated receptionist, and an approach to handling walk‑ins that relies on phone calls and door cameras. Committee members repeatedly asked how the business would handle situations in which a therapist is with a client and another person attempts to enter. One committee member said, “If she’s busy, the door’s gonna be locked…there is gonna be a camera,” and raised the possibility that customers would be asked to call back or return later.

Concerns raised in the hearing included whether the facility’s waiting area and entry procedures would ensure safety and emergency egress, whether locking a doorway during a service would create a hazard in a fire or other emergency, how a single therapist would handle simultaneous demand, and whether language barriers (the applicant was described as relying on a phone translation app) could impede communication about safety or consent.

During the hearing the committee also asked whether fire, building and law‑enforcement inspections had been completed; a speaker stated the location had passed inspections, though committee members requested clarity on the details. After extended public questioning and committee discussion, a motion was made to deny the application and the committee adopted the motion by voice vote. The committee’s motion referenced municipal-code sections in support of the denial recommendation.

Key clarifying details recorded at the hearing: - Hours proposed: 9 a.m.–8 p.m., seven days a week (applicant/supporter testimony). - Staffing: applicant proposed to operate with one licensed massage therapist on site and no receptionist; walk‑ins and phone appointments were described as the means of scheduling (supporter testimony). - Safety/operations: proponents noted cameras and the therapist being present during hours; opponents and committee members raised concerns about door‑locking procedures, emergency egress and whether the business plan adequately addresses safety and surge demand. - Inspections: a speaker stated the location “passed all the inspections,” but committee members requested department confirmation.

Authorities cited by the committee during the denial motion included municipal code sections (transcript references: 13.125(e)(2); 13.125(e)(14); 13.25(e)(9)). The motion to deny passed by voice vote and was recorded as the committee’s recommendation; the committee forwarded the recommendation as its formal action.

What happens next: The committee’s recommendation to deny will be transmitted to the Common Council as the Licensing & Permit Committee’s official recommendation. The applicant may present supplemental materials to the council or withdraw and reapply with operational changes; the transcript records the committee advising applicants that withdrawing and reapplying after correcting identified issues is an option.

Speakers (selected): Chairperson Kennedy (chair), Vice Chairperson Ruffalo, Alderson Harper, supporter John Kervis (identified as a friend and supporter), applicant Chi Shat Song (applicant present via supporter/representative), city attorney staff and Lieutenant Galley (police liaison).

Provenance: the Chi Shat Song applicant hearing begins in the transcript at the item introduction for Item 6 and the denial motion and voice vote are recorded later in the session; the committee’s questioning and public commentary on this item form the substantive record for this recommendation.