Title
title
*Concur with the Plan Commission’s Recommendation and Adopt the Ordinance by Adding a “Body Modification Establishment” as a Special Use in the NA - North Avenue Zoning District.
..end
Introduction
overview
The Plan Commission recommends that the Village Board adopt an Ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance by adding “Body Modification Establishment” as a special use in the NA - North Avenue Zoning District. As a companion application (ORD 26-105), the Petitioner seeks Village approval of a special use permit to operate a body modification establishment at 6549 North Avenue.
end
body
Recommended Action
Adopt the Ordinance. This is a companion item with ORD 26 -105.
Prior Board Action
There is no prior Board action associated with this item.
Background
The Petitioner, TAT3 Chicago Inc., seeks a Zoning Ordinance text amendment to Article 8 “Uses” to allow a body modification establishment in the NA - North Avenue Zoning District as a special use. A body modification establishment is defined in the Zoning Ordinance as follows: “A business that offers tattooing services, body piercing, and/or non-medical body modification. Body modification establishment does not include an establishment that offers only ear piercing as an ancillary service.”
The Zoning Ordinance was adopted in its current form in September 2017, and it has been amended several times since then. The Zoning Ordinance currently does not allow a Body Modification Establishment in the NA District. In contrast, the Zoning Ordinance currently allows Body Modification Establishments as a permitted use in all other commercial zoning districts.
The proposed amendment would provide more consistency with the Zoning Ordinance’s treatment of body modification establishments by offering an approval path (e.g., special use process) for a business to provide body art and similar services on North Avenue on a case-by-case basis, where these uses have been prohibited since 2017 in the NA - North Avenue Zoning District.
On December 22, 2025, the Project Review Team (PRT) reviewed the proposal. The PRT consists of representatives from various departments and divisions within the Village.
On December 24, 2025, a legal notice was published in The Wednesday Journal.
On January 15, 2026, the Plan Commission held a public hearing on the application.
Timing Considerations
The Village Board must act on the application within 60 days of receipt of the Plan Commission recommendation. If the Village Board does not act upon the application within 60 days of receipt, the application is deemed denied.
Budget Impact
The cost of Public Notice was $266 from Account GL string (1001.46202.101.550652). The 2026 budget has sufficient funding for this cost.
Operating Impact
There is no operating impact associated with this item. The item aligns with the department’s core service delivery. Approximately ten (10) hours of staff time have been put toward this item. Managing text amendment applications and special use applications is a fundamental operating function of the Planning & Urban Design Division within the Development Services Department.
DEI Impact
The Applicant is seeking Minority Business Enterprise (MBE) Certification.
Community Input
The Plan Commission held a public hearing on January 15, 2026. Three letters in opposition to the text amendment application were submitted into the record. In addition, nine people spoke in opposition to the requested special use permit, characterizing the proposed use as an undesirable use for North Avenue. The Listing Agent for the property spoke in favor of the application.
The Commission finds that approving the text amendment to the Zoning Ordinance will promote the public health, safety, and welfare of the Village; is consistent with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan of the Village; and will further the future development goals of the Village.
The Plan Commission recommends to the Village President and Board of Trustees that the text amendment be approved by a 5-0 vote. The Findings of Fact report is attached to this agenda item. The video of the public hearing can be seen by clicking the following link: <https://www.oak-park.us/your-government/citizen-commissions/commission-tv>.
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends approving the Text Amendment to add “Body Modification Establishment” as a special use in the NA - North Avenue Zoning District.
Advantages:
• The proposed amendment to allow the use as a special use provides an approval process for North Avenue more in line with the Zoning Ordinance’s treatment of the use in other zoning districts.
• Approving the text amendment would allow for a minority owned business to operate a body modification establishment with special use approval.
• This action allows for the redevelopment of a vacant building.
Disadvantages:
• Approving the text amendment would create a nonconformity for an existing tattoo shop on North Avenue.
• Approving the text amendment would not maintain the status quo of the Zoning Ordinance’s treatment of body modification establishments for North Avenue.
Alternatives
Alternative 1:
The Board can deny the Text Amendment.
Advantages:
• Denying the Text Amendment would stop an existing tattoo shop on North Avenue from becoming a legal non-conforming use.
• Denying the Text Amendment would not address the inconsistent treatment of body modification establishments in the Zoning Ordinance.
• Denying the Text Amendment would allow for the site to be available for a different use.
Disadvantages:
• Denying the Text Amendment would not address the inconsistent treatment of body modification establishments for North Avenue compared to other Zoning Districts, where the proposed use is permitted by right.
• Denying the Text Amendment would maintain the status quo of the Zoning Ordinance’s treatment of body modification establishments on North Avenue.
• The building would remain vacant.
Alternative 2:
The Board can remand the Text Amendment back to the Plan Commission.
Advantages:
• This action would trigger further review and information from the applicant, staff, and the public.
Disadvantages:
• This alternative can result in a delayed timeline for the Applicant and the project.
• This alternative could lead to an erosion of public trust.
Anticipated Future Actions
There are no anticipated future actions in relation to this item.
Prepared By: Mike Bruce, Planning & Urban Design Manager/Village Planner
Reviewed By: Craig Failor, Director of Development Services Department
Approved By: Kevin J. Jackson, Village Manager
Attachment(s):
1. Ordinance
2. Findings of Facts
3. Application
4. Staff Report
5. Opposition Letters
6. Petitioner’s Presentation.