Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Massage Salon Use Permit topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission denies specific-use permit for massage salon at 1548 Bedford Road
Summary
After hearing from the applicants and staff, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted to deny a specific-use permit for a massage salon at 1548 Bedford Road, Suite Y, citing inconsistency with the city's adopted comprehensive plan and existing land-use designations.
The Bedford Planning and Zoning Commission on Thursday denied a request for a specific-use permit that would have allowed a massage salon to operate at 1548 Bedford Road, Suite Y.
Planning staff told commissioners the suite in the retail strip is roughly 1,400 square feet, had a certificate of occupancy as a foot spa in 2021, and appears to have been vacant since December 2023. Staff cited a provision of the city's zoning ordinance that ends nonconforming status if a use is vacant for more than three months. The staff report noted the recently adopted comprehensive plan identifies the parcel as "office-focused commercial," and concluded the proposed massage salon did not meet the plan's goals; staff recommended denial. "The proposed massage salon doesn't meet the goals of the adopted comprehensive plan," staff said.
Applicant Michael Cannon, who said he and his wife recently moved to Bedford and operate a successful shop in Highland Village, told the commission the business would provide licensed massage services and could serve veterans: "We feel that our salon would be very good for this community," Cannon said, adding his wife holds California and Texas licenses and is pursuing additional credentials to serve VA patients.
Commission discussion focused on conformance with the comprehensive plan. One commissioner urged the commission to favor the city's long-range vision: "This facility at this location no longer meets the vision, or it does not meet the vision for the city of Bedford," a commissioner said before moving to deny Case SUP 24-13. The motion to deny was seconded and carried; the denial will be forwarded in the usual process to City Council.
Staff reported that 11 property owners were notified of the hearing and that the department had not received written responses. The commission's decision cited plan conformity rather than operational specifics; the applicant may pursue other options consistent with the city's zoning and land-use regulations.
