Appeals board reverses city non-renewal for Moonlight Spa after contested hearing

The Zoning and Planning Board of Appeals voted to amend the city's non-renewal decision regarding Moonlight Spa's massage-establishment license after a contested quasi-judicial hearing that reviewed years of municipal citations, court activity and witness testimony.

City attorney Lacy Gocher told the board the municipal record included citations in 2021, 2024 and 2025 for violations of city ordinance 1095 (notably employing individuals who were not licensed under state law), and that repeated non-compliance after prior warnings formed the basis for the city's choice not to renew the establishment's license. "The reason for the non-renewal is just a repeated history of violations and demonstrated inability to comply with the ordinance," Gocher said.

Petitioner counsel Scott Connor argued the factual focus had shifted since earlier proceedings and questioned aspects of the underlying enforcement record. Connor also raised concerns about the owner's ability to testify directly as the owner speaks limited English and requested an interpreter. The board debated whether to delay the hearing for translation; a motion to postpone the hearing for an interpreter was moved and seconded but failed, and the board proceeded with testimony and accepted submitted records into the hearing record.

Brian Defrain, identified as the owner's partner and a witness for the petitioner, testified the owner had been medically incapacitated for an extended period — he said she had "stage four cancer" and was unable to manage the business during that time — and that non-English-speaking employees had operated the shop. He also testified the owner is now in remission and that at least one employee currently holds the required license.

Board members focused on the legal standard they had been instructed to apply: whether the city had a rational basis for nondiscretionary action under the ordinance. Members discussed whether convictions and citations from 2021 should be factored into a three-year review period and whether the city had provided evidence of systemic enforcement or an opportunity for corrective action. After deliberation, a board member moved "to amend the city's decision" and the board voted in favor of the motion.

The board's action, as stated in the record, amended the earlier administrative non-renewal; the board directed counsel and staff to manage the technical follow-up. The board also allowed counsel to supplement the record with documents submitted during the hearing. The board did not issue findings beyond the motion language recorded at the meeting; parties were directed to consult counsel and staff for implementation steps and any follow-on procedures available under the stipulated court agreement and municipal ordinance.

The hearing included extended procedural discussion about the applicable ordinance, municipal-court adjudications, and accommodations for limited-English witnesses. The board did not announce a written opinion on the record; any formal written decision and its precise scope will be reflected in the board's minutes and subsequent staff notifications.