-
Planning and Zoning Commission member Tommy Harrison Monday evening at City Hall listens to Brandy Estes answer questions about microblading services she will offer at her new salon location on Hillcrest Drive. Staff photo by Jillian Smith
ADU definition also to take public comments
The Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) discussed cosmetic tattooing again at their June meeting, among other items.
After convening at 6:03 p.m. Monday, the board made a correction to its May minutes, which reflected both that Matthew Mattison was absent and that he seconded a motion. Mattison confirmed he was present at the May meeting, and the minutes were amended to reflect this. As such, they passed unanimously.
COSMETIC TATTOOING
The board heard an application to perform cosmetic tattooing at 440 South Hillcrest Drive. This would be a new business venture of Brandy Estes, who is looking to open a salon at the Woodbridge Mall, according to Community Development Director Tory Niewiadomski. Estes has previously been granted a special use permit for cosmetic tattooing for Southern Roots salon on Broadway, Niewiadomski stated.
The city sent out 14 letters to property owners within 200 feet of the business and received three against and one in support of the permit, Niewiadomski said. One of the letters in opposition did not provide a reason for opposition, one letter worried about increased traffic, and one opposed letter asked, “What else will be in there?” according to the letters.
“It seems like half the time, we’re dealing with these things [cosmetic tattooing applications],” Niewiadomski noted. “But, we feel more comfortable now that we’re coming up with a definition [for cosmetic tattooing], so staff recommends approval.”
Estes answered questions for P&Z about business hours. Don Rountree, speaking as a member of the citizen audience, asked if there would be “restrictions on this type of permit.”
“Will it open up the door for other tattooing type operations to go ahead and be allowed?” Rountree wanted to know.
Niewiadomski told Rountree no, that those who apply for cosmetic tattooing permits would be held to that permit by city code and would not, as Rountree put it “morph into some other type of tattooing.”
“If she wanted to do fullbody tattooing, she would have to get a different type of permit,” Niewiadomski stated.
Rountree told Niewiadomski that he owned and rented out homes nearby to the property where “retired, single ladies” live, and “they might not see it acceptable in their neighborhood.”
“There’s no tattooing allowed in this zone at all,” board member Craig English assured Rountree. “If she wanted to do that, she’d have to come back before this board and the ZBA [Zoning Board of Adjustments] to be approved.”
Niewiadomski told Rountree that within the last three years, P&Z has heard very few applications for decorative tattooing, but many for cosmetic tattooing.
“Cosmetic tattooing is like, some ladies don’t have the bushy eyebrows that I have,” Rountree said in clarification. “Instead of painting it on every morning, they might seek a more permanent application?”
“It’s not exactly permanent,” Estes added. “It lasts up to three years, but it’s not permanent.”
Charles Darr, speaking as a member of the citizen audience, also voiced concerns. Principally, Darr said, he was concerned about increased traffic from 18-wheelers performing u-turns in the Red Oak Circle.
“I wouldn’t think she’s going to have multiple, multiple people all at one time,” board member Pat Chase told Darr.
“She’s going to have tanning booths and a hair salon, and that’s a big building, so it can handle a lot of people at one time, plus people that go to work,” Darr said.
Darr also expressed concern that the cosmetic tattooing permit would apply to the building, not to Estes, and Mattison indicated to Darr it would not. Darr asked for a “guarantee they wouldn’t.” Mattison told Darr this was the purview of the ZBA.
Furthermore, Niewiadomski told Darr, “We are aware about the issue of the trucks turning around, that’s an ongoing issue with TxDOT [Texas Department of Transportation], and we’ve spoken to them about it for a long time. But that is a public road with public access. That’s TxDOT’s issue to try to resolve… but we’re not in control of that.”
With no further discussion, the permit was unanimously approved.
The group then moved to formally define cosmetic tattooing and allow it within certain zones by right. Currently, it is only allowed by special use, which is why P&Z and ZBA have heard so many applications, Niewiadomski said.
Currently, the city has put notice in the Sulphur Springs News-Telegram and will hold a public hearing at next month’s P&Z meeting about a proposed ordinance that may be heard before city council in the future, Niewiadomski said.
The definition that would appear in the proposed ordinance would define cosmetic tattooing as “a cosmetic technique which employs tattoos (permanent pigmentation of the dermis) as a means of producing designs that resemble makeup, such as eyelining and other permanent enhancing colors to the skin of the face, lips, and eyelids. It is also used to produce artificial eyebrows, particularly in people who have lost them as a consequence of old age, disease, such as alopecia totalis, chemotherapy, or a genetic disturbance, and to disguise scars and white spots in the skin such as in vitiligo.”
The board unanimously affirmed they would hold a public hearing in July.
DEFINING ADUs
Niewiadomski also wished to set a public hearing about a proposed ordinance for Accessory Dwelling Units that may be heard before city council in the future. After several months of discussion, the definition P&Z determined for ADUs is as follows: Accessory dwelling unit is a smaller, secondary home on the same lot as a primary dwelling. ADUs are independently habitable and provide the basic requirements of shelter, heat, cooking and sanitation. They can be attached to the primary structure or detached units.
The group unanimously affirmed their definition to be presented at a public hearing.
The group also reviewed further restrictions and regulations they had developed for ADUs, which are outlined on the City of Sulphur Springs website at http://www. sulphurspringstx.org/.
Of note, Chase and Niewiadomski discussed whether or not including a specific number of parking spots for an ADU was worthwhile. The group also wished to discuss whether or not investment properties were grandfathered in. They resolved to discuss it further at a public hearing.
The group unanimously affirmed to uphold these definitions for ADUs, and unanimously resolved to hold a public hearing in July to discuss ADUs.
With no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:38 p.m.