Zoning board postpones decision on proposed downtown Royal Oak City tattoo studio after objections, lack of full board

The Royal Oak City Zoning Board of Appeals postponed a vote on an application to open a tattoo and body‑piercing studio at 117 West 4th Street after the petitioner asked to defer the case until next month.

Counsel Dennis Cowan, speaking for applicant Santke Inc., said the business would operate under the Cleopatra Inc. banner and described the company as an established international operator with a “very good international track record.” Staff told the board the zoning ordinance classifies tattoo and piercing studios as adult‑oriented businesses, and the applicant is seeking a use variance plus waivers from the ordinance’s 1,000‑foot buffer requirements; staff noted the closest regulated adult business is about 227 feet away and Eagle Park Plaza is roughly 169 feet from the site.

Cowan noted the adult‑business classification dates back about 30 years and that state regulations for tattoo studios were not adopted until 2010; he said Oakland County licensing and inspection, practitioner permits and infection‑control training are part of the regulatory framework that would apply if the board approved the variance. “There’s now about 25 pages of regulation, and it’s very comprehensive,” Cowan said.

During public comment the building owner, Michael Pitt, said his renovation and the building’s configuration limit what kinds of tenants the space can accommodate and described the prospective tenant as an “upscale” operation he visited in California. Justin Fox, owner and resident artist at Fourth Street Tattoo, urged the board to deny the variance, saying he renewed his lease with the expectation that competitors would be at least 1,000 feet away and that a 140‑location corporate operator could undercut locally owned shops. “I am opposed to the variance in question,” Fox said.

Board members questioned whether permitted downtown uses exist that would suit the site and whether the thousand‑foot buffers effectively preclude most downtown locations. Chair noted that, because one member recused and others had stepped aside, the board would be down three voting members for this case and that the ordinance requires six affirmative votes to grant the use variance. After closing public comment the petitioner requested the postponement and the board voted to adjourn the matter until next month.

The postponement means no formal decision was recorded; the chair said a denial (if it occurs in a future hearing) would remain valid for one year unless there were a substantial change. The application is expected to return to the board at the next meeting when more members may be available to vote.