Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Special Use Permit topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Sanger council declines to deny tattoo studio permit, asks applicant to appear in person

Sanger City Council · November 4, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

After public concern about a proposed tattoo studio near a school and church, the Sanger City Council voted down a motion to deny the special-use permit and instead took no action, asking staff to have the applicant appear at a future meeting to answer questions about hours, signage and proximity.

SANGER — Council members debated a special-use permit for a proposed tattoo studio at 103 South Stemmons Freeway on Nov. 3 and rejected a motion to deny the permit, opting instead to take no action and request the applicant attend a future meeting.

Planning staff described the request for a SUP to allow a tattoo studio in a Regional Commercial (RC) zone, and said 12 notices were mailed and two returned in opposition. Andy Reid, who represents two buildings directly south of the site, spoke in opposition and urged the council to consider distance restrictions, hours of operation and signage because the location is near a school, a church and residences. “I’m here to speak in opposition to this special use permit without some modifications to the zoning and in consideration of its proximity to the church, the residents, and the school,” Reid said.

Council members discussed whether the city’s SUP authority allows them to impose restrictions such as minimum separation from schools or limits on hours or signage. Planning staff noted that PNZ (Planning and Zoning) recommended approval and that the applicant did not attend the PNZ hearing.

Councilman Chick moved to deny ordinance 11-32-25 (the SUP). Councilman Gann seconded the motion to deny, but the motion failed by a 2–3 vote (the council recorded two votes in favor of denial and three opposed). After the failed motion, council agreed to take no action on the item at this meeting and directed staff to contact the applicant to arrange for the applicant to appear and answer council questions.

What’s next: Staff will contact the applicant to schedule their appearance at a future council meeting so members can hear directly from the business about hours, services (the letter of intent did not specify body piercing), staffing and proposed measures to address proximity concerns.