Forever Greatful Art Studios, LLC v. City of Orange Township, A-3671-23

James Ray, owner of Forever Greatful Art Studios (FGA), signed a lease in March 2023 for a tattoo and piercing studio in the City of Orange, New Jersey’s Central Business District.
Ray applied for and received a zoning permit, and then obtained plumbing, signage, and Certificate of Occupancy (CO) approvals, expecting to receive all necessary licenses to operate.
The City’s ordinance defined "personal service establishments" to include certain businesses, and Ray claimed tattoo/piercing fell under this category; however, the ordinance did not specifically mention tattoo or piercing services.
In August 2023, the studio passed a health inspection, but Ray was told a health license might not be issued due to absence of a specific ordinance covering body art establishments.
The City Council ultimately rejected an ordinance amendment that would have expressly permitted body art establishments, and subsequently denied FGA a health license.
Plaintiffs sued alleging the denial was arbitrary and sought to compel the City to issue a health license or apply equitable estoppel; the trial and appellate courts upheld the City’s denial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a tattoo/piercing studio is a permitted "personal service establishment" under the ordinance	Tattoo/piercing services are "specialized goods and services" similar to listed uses	The ordinance's plain language does not include such uses	Not a permitted use; tattoo/piercing distinguishable by health risks
City's refusal to issue health license	Denial was arbitrary and unreasonable since prior permits were granted	City complied with the ordinance as tattoo shops aren’t included	Denial was valid; not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable
Application of equitable estoppel	Plaintiff reasonably relied on City approvals and suffered financial loss	Rarely applies to public entities; reliance not reasonable	No estoppel; no compelling circumstances or reasonable reliance
Sufficiency of trial evidence and findings	Court's fact findings unsupported by evidence	Court correctly assessed credibility and facts	Court's findings supported; deference owed to trial court

Big Smoke LLC v. Township of W. Milford, 478 N.J. Super. 203 (presumption of validity for municipal actions, burden on challenger)
Bryant v. City of Atl. City, 309 N.J. Super. 596 (municipal actions presumed valid, only overturned if arbitrary/capricious)
Bubis v. Kassin, 184 N.J. 612 (ordinance interpretation is a question of law, not deference to municipal interpretation)
Greipenburg v. Township of Ocean, 220 N.J. 239 (appellate courts defer to trial court fact-finding unless clearly erroneous)
Middletown Twp. Policemen's Benevolent Ass'n Loc. No. 124 v. Township of Middletown, 162 N.J. 361 (equitable estoppel rarely applied against government)
Bridge v. Neptune Twp. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 233 N.J. Super. 587 (difference between ultra vires acts and irregular exercises of municipal power for estoppel)