Voters to weigh-in on revised body art establishment bylaw
Date: 10/1/2012
By Chris Maza
chrism@thereminder.comEAST LONGMEADOW — The Planning Board received mixed reactions regarding body art establishments from those present at its Sept. 25 public hearing.
The bylaw amendment that would allow the permitted by right use of property in the business district for body art establishments, provided it is not within 500 feet of a public or charter school or a church, was the main focus of the discussion at the hearing to address the proposed bylaw changes that will be included in the Oct. 1 Special Town Meeting warrant.
Planning Board chair George Kingston reiterated at the hearing that a court ruling regarding body art establishments stated that to prohibit their existence is unconstitutional as their operation is protected under the First Amendment.
He also reminded the public that all licensing would be done locally by the town's Board of Health because no state licensing exists.
"The state has refused to take up the requirement for body art licensing, so there is no state licensing," he said. "Any restrictions have to be at the municipal level."
James Sheils, town moderator, told the board that he did not understand the need for the 500-foot buffer.
"I happen not to have any body art. My children do. I am curious, therefore, as to why the proposed bylaw prohibits an establishment within 500 feet of a church or a school," he said. "It adds an element of seediness, I think, and I'm curious as to why the board felt that was appropriate to have that qualifier where that qualifier doesn't exist for many types of businesses."
Kingston responded by explaining that the 500 feet was a compromise that covers primarily the center of town and the area around the high school. He also stated that the board used the state's regulations that prohibit liquor stores and bars from being in close proximity to schools as a guideline while forming their bylaw regarding body art establishments.
"Look at the area between the high school and the center where we have large numbers of young adults who traverse that between the school, libraries and their homes and to play on the center playing fields, for instance, who would be exposed to an attractive possibility, even though they're too young to get body art applied," he said. "All we can do is limit where they might go and our intention is to limit them to areas of town where if someone wants to go get body art, they can do it, but it has to be a deliberate decision — it's not where the kids are walking past everyday.
"It leaves 41.2 percent of the business district still available for body art establishments, so it's not like we're limiting it to two stores in a particular place," he added.
Robert Picknelly, who identified himself as a 58-year resident of the town, pressed the board for the exact case law Kingston alluded to. The board pointed Picknelly to Lanpher v. Commonwealth, which took place in superior court, in 2000. At that point, Picknelly argued that the ruling didn't hold much weight because any higher court did not rule upon it.
Planning Director Robyn Macdonald explained to Picknelly that the reason no other court addressed the case was because it was never appealed.
Kingston added that his primary concern while drafting the bylaw was to prevent possible legal action that could be taken against the town.
"Our intention here is to not subject the town of East Longmeadow to litigation expensive litigation," he said. "It's not a good use of the town's resources to get sued and have to take this to the appeals court or to the [Supreme Judicial Court]."
Picknelly also argued that the town voted to prohibit McDonald's and Lowes, to which Kingston retorted that the town voted to prohibit specific types of businesses, not specific corporations and explained that under Chapter 40 of Massachusetts General Law, those zoning restrictions were legal. However, he said, a zoning restriction against body art establishments would not be.
Resident Robert Steele stated a different opinion, explaining that while he wasn't pleased at the thought of body art establishments in East Longmeadow, he felt that any new business for the town would be beneficial and the proposed bylaw offers some protection to the town.
"I'm not a proponent of body art establishments, but I do definitely endorse and support the idea of getting more small businesses in town," he said. "I do think it's very important, however, to establish restrictions as you have in the warrant, to keep them in certain places in town. I prefer not to have them, but if we do have to have them, keep them where they should be away from churches, away from school traffic and away from schools."
Addressing a separate bylaw issue regarding private home offices or studios, Sheils questioned language he didn't understand regarding regulations that prohibit clients from coming to home offices.
"It says clients or consumers are not permitted on the property for business purposes. Isn't the whole purpose of being a business to be on the property?" Sheils asked.
Kingston explained, "We have a lot of people in town who operate businesses out of their houses using computers and the Internet. Basically, all they do is book appointments or sell things or drop shipment or do website design, for instance, in which case, it is all conducted by phone or Internet. So we do not have clients showing up. What we're trying not to do is proliferate businesses that generate traffic in residential neighborhoods."
Kingston also clarified that the bylaw was not related to the recent home-based business issue the town faced.
"That was for people who needed trucks and equipment," he said.
