Angry neighbors impetus for regulation amendment

Washington’s only tattoo and body piercing studio will be allowed to continue its operations, despite a newly passed ordinance which has tighter regulations on home-occupied businesses.

The amended code was proposed  Feb. 15, after a Sept. 21 city council meeting during which angry neighbors voiced their concerns about having such a business operating on a residential street.

The Monday vote put into effect a detailed list of prohibited home-based businesses, a provision for the code enforcement officer to issue licenses to non-specified businesses and more latitude to the zoning board in deciding when to grant a permit.

Planning and development director Jon Oliphant said that it was not specifically targeting the tattoo business, but that the situation had the city take a look at the old code.

“It would be wrong to characterize it as an ordinance that is against the tattoo and body piercing establishment,” said Oliphant. “I do not really want the focus to be on that one, but in all honesty, this is what got us to take a closer look at it. We have had the regulations in effect for over 10 years, and we have not had any problems with it until this one came up. That was certainly a reason to take a look at the situation as a whole, but with that said, the city tried to take a more comprehensive look at the home occupations regulations, and we came up with a few different things.”

Terry and Thomas Coppenbarger had been running the tattoo studio out of the basement at their home at 209 Wilshire Drive in the Devonshire residential subdivision in Washington, when they first drew the attention and anger of neighbors as a required sign was placed on their front yard, addressing the application of a license.

“There is not a problem, there has never been. People did not even know that he was running a business until he put up a sign in his yard,” said Carol Eichelkraut, who lives next door at 208 Wilshire Drive. “He had been doing this for about three years until all this happened.”
Coppenbarger’s license to operate was approved Aug. 26 based on the 12 conditions for use as stated by the city of Washington, prompting the outcry.

At the Sept. 21 city council meeting, neighbors protested and spoke of the possible moral implications and the increase of traffic and bike- and gang-related activity due to the nature of the business.

Bill Schell, of 300 Wilshire Drive, stated at the time that the tattoo and body piercing studio was not in line with other residential businesses, such as music lessons, selling Avon and pet grooming, and compared the tattoo activity to those of a massage parlor, which falls under much stricter rules.

Another neighbor, Ron Folkerts, had brought up the issue of sufficient legal parking to accommodate Coppenbarger’s customers and the type of customers it would attract.

“They are nice neighbors with nice kids, and they keep their yard really clean. There has never been a problem with a lot of cars,” said Eichelkraut. “You know, when people shout fire and then everyone runs, that is what happened here.”

Another Wilshire Drive resident, who did not wish to be named, admits she had her own concerns and even attended the city council meeting

“At first, when I heard about it, I thought, ‘no,’ but as time went on, there is no problem, there are not too many cars parked up there. So, it is fine with me,” she said. “I did not even know he was running a business until some of the neighbors told me about it.”

The March 1-approved ordinance will include a prohibited home-occupations list, which includes tattoo and body piercing operations, funeral homes and restaurants, among others, which are not suitable for residential districts and would bring considerably more traffic and noises and other issues to a neighborhood that would not make them compatible with a residential setting, said Oliphant.

A provision granting the code enforcement officer and the zoning board considerably more leeway in deciding when to approve or not to approve a permit has also been included in the amendment.

“There will be cases that are not specified and take up time and expenses,” said Oliphant. “The code enforcement officer can grant permits on those that would not create noise, traffic and deliveries. And the zoning board previously did not have a whole lot of room to go outside and make a decision if the applicant met all those 12 conditions. This grants them the ability to look at a proposed home-occupation business and its impact on the neighborhood and decide on a case-by-case basis.”

City attorney Ken Black said the zoning board of appeal’s decision in favor of Coppenbarger cannot be overturned.