Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Zoning Body Art topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Planning board recommends insurance, workers' compensation proof for body‑art permits

Revere Planning Board · July 29, 2026
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

The Revere Planning Board recommended that proofs of general liability and workers' compensation be required before permits for body‑art establishments are considered, while noting the requirement should not be unduly restrictive compared with similar small businesses.

The Revere Planning Board voted to recommend that proof of general liability and workers' compensation insurance be required for body‑art establishment permits, provided the requirement is not unduly restrictive relative to similar small businesses. The motion passed with the members present voting in favor and two members absent.

Claire Inzarillo of the City Solicitor's Office told the board that the amendment under consideration would broaden where a ‘body art establishment’ may operate beyond the TED district and would codify the longstanding requirement that practitioners and establishments obtain Board of Health permits. “Body art is classified as traditional artistic tattooing… it also encompasses body piercing, cosmetic tattooing, microblading and microneedling,” Inzarillo said, outlining the scope the amendment would cover. She said Board of Health permitting and inspections would continue to apply.

Board members pressed staff on operational and liability questions, including whether chair‑rental business models change insurance obligations and how the building department and ISD coordinate occupancy and work‑comp requirements. One member moved that “for a permit to be considered, proof of liability and workman's compensation insurance as required as long as this is not unduly restrictive relative to similar small businesses.” The board recorded votes in favor and the motion passed. Claire said she would consult the Building Department and ISD to ensure the city does not treat the new use more restrictively than comparable businesses, such as hair salons.

The recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council as the planning board’s advisory opinion; any final change to the zoning table or permit process would be the City Council’s decision and, if retained as a special permit use, individual proposals would continue to be reviewed on a case‑by‑case basis.