Tattoo parlor owner wins two-year lawsuit

Medford -

Two years after denying a license for a tattoo business in Medford Square, city officials have lost a lawsuit after a judge ruled that forcing owners of such establishments to file for a special permit under city ordinances is unconstitutional.

The City Council originally voted 4-3 to allow Cheryl Voight’s license back in December of 2004, one vote shy of the five needed for approval, after she applied to open Lucky’s Tattoos in the downtown business area.

Voight could not be reached for comment as of the Transcript’s Tuesday deadline. However, the site of her proposed Forest Street location has since been sold and it is unknown if Voight plans to open her business somewhere else in the city.

“I knew she would win,” said City Council President Robert Maiocco, who originally voted to allow Voight’s parlor. “I’ve been through cases like this before and you just have to weigh your personal preferences with what’s allowed by the Supreme Court.”

But Councilors Michael Marks and Paul Camuso, along with former councilor William Carr, voted in the negative and now the city will likely be paying Voight’s lawyer fees, Maiocco said.

“This [case] has to be taken under advisement with this council,” Maiocco said. “I’m not going to speak for other councilors or why they may have voted, but there’s a tattoo operation in South Medford Square and I haven’t heard any complaints. If anything I’ve heard positives. It’s not like 50 years ago when it comes to tattoos.”

Back in 2004, councilors were split about where they stood on the tattoo issue. Councilor Michael Marks said although he had nothing against having tattoo parlors within the city, he would not support having one in Medford Square. At the time, Marks said the city was drawing up a master plan to revitalize the area and he didn’t think a tattoo parlor fit with that vision.

“There are not many reasons or attractions to go to the square,” said Marks in 2004. “I don’t think Lucky’s Tattoo is an attraction. I don’t see it as part of the revitalization of Medford Square.”

Marks added he would have liked to see the Square become a place where people could eat, shop and attend various plays and performances.

“We, as members of the council, have to have some vision,” said Marks.

Marks added although city officials had already approved tattoo parlors in other parts of the city, that didn’t mean the council had to grant a special permit to every petitioner that came before them. Marks reiterated he was not against having tattoo parlors in other parts of the city, but did not support one in the heart of the city.

“I have nothing against tattooing,” said Marks. “I just don’t think a tattoo parlor is a good fit.”

In the meantime, Councilor Stephanie Muccini Burke said in 2004 that although she did not necessarily think a tattoo parlor was the best fit for Medford Square, she would vote in favor of the petition because the downtown area is zoned for commercial use.

“I don’t think we should be able dictate what kind of business can come in,” she said at the time. “I don’t think it’s our role.”

Burke said a tattoo parlor would offer a characteristic the Square didn’t have: diversity. She said the area was overrun with nail and hair salons as well as barbershops and that it would be nice to have something unique.

“I think it just offers diversity,” said Burke. “It’s something different.”

Burke said unfortunately, the word tattoo carries a negative connotation and she thought that was why a number of residents were so upset another one of these businesses could be opening. She said if she was in the petitioner’s shoes, she would take a hard look at changing the name of the proposed business for that reason.

“That’s the problem,” said Burke. “It’s the name and the stigma.”