CENTERVILLE—The Centerville City Council recently voted 3-2 to approve a new body art ordinance, Ordinance No. 2025-07, following a lengthy discussion on Aug. 27. The ordinance amends the city’s zoning code to permit body art facilities in various commercial and industrial zones, while explicitly prohibiting them within the historic South Main Street Corridor. This decision came as a response to First Amendment concerns raised last fall when resident Nicole Hutchins, who offers permanent cosmetics at New Trend Salon on North Main Street, requested an amendment to the city’s zoning code that would allow fine line tattooing and permit the use in any commercial zone. (The council again reconsidered the ordinance change on July 1 but then voted to table it.)

The vote was not without significant opposition. Councilmember Cheylynn Hayman, who voted against the ordinance, argued that the city was stepping on constitutionally protected ground.

 “Our city council is given really broad leeway to determine what types of businesses we want in which locations in our city,” she said. “But it is an entirely different ballgame when we’re talking about the regulation of businesses engaged in conduct protected by the first amendment,” Hayman said. “In that case, the rules of the game change entirely.” 

Hayman asserted that the ordinance was not “narrowly tailored” to protect the city’s historic character as staff had claimed. She pointed out that permanent cosmetics and other tattoos are created using “the exact same equipment, the exact same needles, the exact same ink.” The only difference the ordinance addressed was the tattooed design itself, a content-based distinction that violates the First Amendment, she said.

Hayman also highlighted the presence of businesses like a car wash, fast-food restaurants and a body waxing establishment on Main Street, questioning why a tattoo facility would be more damaging. 

“Are we really taking the position that these uses…protect the historic feel of Main Street, but that body art would fundamentally take away from the historic feel in a way that these other businesses do not?” she asked.

Hero position was not only rooted in constitutional theory but also in practical financial concerns, she said. “An attorney from the ACLU of Utah, sent the city a demand letter arguing that we’re violating the First Amendment by not allowing tattooing.”

This made the vote a financial risk in her eyes. “I cannot in good conscience put significant tax dollars at risk by passing an ordinance that I think there is a good possibility would be challenged in court. Not when the alternative is just to allow a service that I don’t believe would cause any harm,” Hayman said.

“I don’t think people are going to be flocking to Centerville’s Main Street to open body art facilities,” she added. And if somebody does want to open a body art facility on Main Street, I would welcome their business. People who get tattoos are no different than the people who go to the beauty salon to get their hair done or who walk into an accountant’s office to get their taxes done or who walk into their esthetician’s office to get a personal wax.”

Councilmember Robyn Mecham voted in favor of the ordinance.

“Some of the things that you have mentioned are grandfathered in, but they would not make it by today’s [standards],” she said. She emphasized the importance of preserving the historic feel of Main Street, calling it a “walkway for our kids on their way to school.”

Mecham voiced her concern that allowing body art facilities on Main Street would change the district’s character. “I think with our main street, we’ve turned away other things that we felt like would change the dynamic, the historic nature, and especially the fact that it’s next to residential homes,” she said. 

Councilmember Spencer Summerhays joined Hayman in voting against the ordinance, not because he opposed body art facilities, but because he believed the ordinance failed to protect constitutional rights, he said. “As a council member, I’ve not been provided specific and explicit detrimental impacts to health, safety, and general welfare... and I have not been provided specific and explicit detrimental impacts to preservation of aesthetics and character.”

Despite some strong opposition, the motion to approve the ordinance passed by a 3-2 vote. 

In the end, Mecham, Hirst, and Plummer voted for the motion, while Hayman and Summerhays voted against it.

Councilmember Gina Hirst voted in favor of the ordinance, stating that she was “fine with it being permitted as proposed.”

 “I want to have that be as open as we can make it in as many areas of the city as we can,” she said.

Councilmember Brian Plummer, who also voted for the ordinance, tried to bridge the gap between the two sides. 

“I would just like to say that all of us support the First Amendment... we want to support the freedom of speech. That’s fundamental to being an America,” he said. "But we need to be good citizens within the community and understand that neighborhoods, people that live in homes that have lived there for years that have a history and of their neighborhood. We need to be understanding to that.” 

The new ordinance now provides a formal framework for body art businesses to operate within Centerville’s city limits, though not in the historic Main Street area.