Board of Adjustment Meeting – April 17, 2024

The Tempe Board of Adjustment met on April 17, 2024, at 7:00 p.m. (local time) to consider a single substantive agenda item: an appeal of the Zoning Administrator’s opinion regarding whether Daisy Aesthetic Collective at 522 South Mill Avenue should be exempt from the definition of a tattoo establishment. After approximately 90 minutes of testimony and deliberation, the board voted 4-3 to overturn the administrator’s decision, finding that the business’s services constitute tattooing under the zoning code.

Consent Calendar

• Approval of Meeting Minutes (January 24, 2024): The board unanimously approved the study session and formal meeting minutes from January 24, 2024.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Sean Battle (Club Tattoo, 29 years in business): Opposed the exemption; stated that fine-line tattooing is identical to traditional tattooing in process and permanence, and that the business’s own social media showed use of three-needle cartridges.
• Jenna Mansperger (tattoo artist at Living Canvas Tattoos, Mill Avenue): Opposed the exemption; testified that she offers fine-line single-needle tattoos and that the applicant’s claims of uniqueness were false; also noted that saline removal is common in her studio.
• Tiffany Molina (former Tempe business owner, now at Club Tattoo): Opposed the exemption; stated that her own business with the same model was shut down by the city, and that fine-line removals require multiple sessions like traditional tattoos.
• Cassie Luhan (co-owner of The Plant Mill, Mill Avenue): Supported Daisy Aesthetic Collective; argued that the clientele and experience are different from a traditional tattoo parlor.
• Joseph McClellan (co-owner of The Plant Mill): Supported Daisy; noted that customers visiting Daisy’s would not feel comfortable in a tattoo parlor, and vice versa.
• Additional supporters (Brianna Flates, Azaia Vigil, Tina Holsey, Francisco Vigil, Claudia Rooney, Isabel Perez, Cheyenne, and others): Expressed general support for Daisy Aesthetic Collective without substantive testimony.

Discussion Items

• Appeal Presentation (Mark Walters, appellant, owner of Living Canvas Tattoos): Argued that the Zoning Administrator’s opinion was based on misrepresentations. Presented evidence that the applicant’s own videos and social media show use of three-needle cartridges (not a single needle as claimed) and that fine-line tattooing is not different from traditional tattooing. Stated that the removal process described (saline/lemon juice) is also used by traditional tattoo shops. Raised concerns about future proliferation of tattoo shops on Mill Avenue if the exemption stands.
• Appellant’s Attorney (Neil Bookspan): Emphasized that the zoning code’s definition of a tattoo establishment hinges on the need for surgical removal. Noted that the applicant’s tattoos are applied with the same equipment and inks as traditional tattoos, and that the city’s approval could lead to legal challenges and erosion of zoning controls.
• Applicant’s Presentation (Darren Sender, attorney for Daisy Aesthetic Collective): Argued that fine-line tattoos are not “tattoos” under the code because they can be removed without surgical procedures (e.g., saline osmosis, fading over time). Stated that 80% of the business involves non-tattoo services (facials, permanent makeup, jewelry). Asserted that the Zoning Administrator’s opinion was correct and should be upheld.
• Applicant’s Owner (Malia Sawn, co-owner of Daisy Aesthetic Collective): Described her training as a licensed esthetician and claimed that fine-line tattoos are deposited in a shallower skin layer (epidermis/dermis junction) making them semi-permanent. Showed examples of salt-and-saline removal and fading. Admitted under questioning that the business uses three-needle cartridges, not only single needles.
• Staff Presentation (Chris Jasper, Senior Planner): Explained that the board’s options were to approve the appeal (overturn the administrator’s opinion), deny the appeal (uphold the opinion), or continue the matter. Asked the board to provide clear guidance for future policy.
• Zoning Administrator (Ryan Levesque, Deputy Director): Stated that the decision was based on the applicant’s description of a single-needle process and the definition focusing on surgical removal. Noted that the business’s additional services were a secondary factor. Conceded that the use of three-needle cartridges would create a “gray area.”

Key Outcomes

• Motion to Approve the Appeal (Overturn the Zoning Administrator’s Opinion): Made by board member Ron Kegy, seconded by another member. After debate, the board voted 4-3 in favor. The motion passed, meaning the board found that the Zoning Administrator’s opinion was incorrectly determined and that Daisy Aesthetic Collective must be classified as a tattoo establishment subject to the city’s zoning code (including separation requirements).
• Vote Breakdown: 4 in favor (Mary Foy, Kevin Morrow, Sean McCarley, and one other – likely the chair or Kaylee Palmer) and 3 opposed (Ron Kegy, Jack Confer, and another – likely Ricky Ben or Kaylee Palmer as per roll call). The final recorded vote was 4-3.
• Next Steps: Staff will issue a formal decision letter within a few days. The board’s action is subject to further appeal rights (not specified in the meeting). The next Board of Adjustment meeting is scheduled for May 22, 2024.