Rosemount City Council Prohibits Tattoo, Piercing Businesses Within Homes

The Rosemount City Council voted 4-1 to prohibit tattoo and body piercing businesses from operating out of a private residence at Tuesday night's meeting. Councilman Matt Kearney was the only person to oppose the vote.

The council had a lengthy discussion on defining home occupations and other various issues related to tattoo and body piercing establishments operating from inside a home.

According to Councilman Mark DeBettignies, three adjoining communities (Eagan, Inver Grove Heights and Lakeville) have already prohibited tattoo and body piercing businesses to operate in homes; Apple Valley and West St. Paul city councils will soon be addressing the same issue.

DeBettignies was most concerned by inspections only occurring once every three years, and whether or not the state would keep a close eye on tattoo and body piercing establishments.

"We are diserving residents by allowing this type of business in a residential area," DeBettignies said.

Although the businesses would have many "strong" guidelines to follow, DeBettignies said, "...but who's going to follow [them]?"

According to Minnesota statute 146B.02 (Subdivision 7), if the body-art establishment is located within a private residence, the space where the body art procedures are performed must:

• Be completely partitioned off;
• Be exclusively used for body-art procedures;
• Be separate from the residential living, eating and bathroom areas;
• Have a separate and secure entrance accessible without entering the residential living, eating and bathroom areas; and,
• Be made available for inspection upon the request of the health and safety commissioner.

Mayor William Droste said he understood the "importance of private businesses and [businesses] out of people's homes," but he felt residents and neighbors of tattoo and body piercing establishments might have a problem with those types of "activities" being run out of a home.

However, Councilwoman Kim Shoe-Corrigan said she didn't believe noise or parking would be an issue.

Kearney said he had a problem with "this body taking a position on what a legal business is in the city."

Shoe-Corrigan said she disagreed with Kearney. "It is our job as a council to decide what is an acceptable business to be run in a residential area," she said.

Both Kearney and Shoe-Corrigan agreed they could see the issue coming back to the council eventually, whether it was approved or not approved.

The state enacted the statute in 2010, which required body art establishments (tattoo parlors and body piercing) to be licensed through the Minnesota Department of Health. In the statute, the state would be responsible for licensing and health-related issues, and the city would be allowed to adopt its own regulations more restrictive than the statute. Moreover, the city would be responsible for enforcing guidelines on home occupations and zoning requirements.

The issue was discussed at both the March 22 and April 26 Planning Commission meetings, as well as the May 11 City Council Work Session.