Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Group Homes topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council tables proposed zoning change to allow group homes as permitted uses
Summary
The council voted to table Bill 62‑91, which would redefine and allow group homes as permitted uses in several residential zoning districts; members cited the need for planning-and-zoning rationale and concern about removing public review.
Maplewood, Mo. — The Maplewood City Council on Aug. 12 voted to table Bill 62‑91, a zoning ordinance that would redefine “group homes” and make them permitted uses in the city’s residential zoning districts, after council members raised concerns about removing conditional use review and public input.
Under the current code, group homes are reviewed as conditional uses in some contexts. The proposed bill would amend several sections of the city code (chapter 56) to permit group homes in SR, LR and MR districts and redefine group-living facilities. Planning staff asked that group homes be changed from conditional uses to permitted uses to “remove barriers” and facilitate siting, as described during the discussion.
Council members expressed concerns about eliminating the conditional-use review process, which provides public notice and an opportunity for neighbors to comment. Several members cited previous local cases — including what they described as contentious public debate when group homes sought approval at the Immaculate Conception campus and at other sites — and said the conditional-use process helps address misinformation and neighborhood concerns. One council member said allowing group homes as permitted uses would remove the city’s ability to regulate the number and location of such facilities and would reduce opportunities for public comment.
Planning staff told the council the proposed code change includes a spacing limitation (1,500 feet) that would prevent group homes from clustering on adjacent blocks. Staff also said there were no pending applications tied to this change, so there was no immediate time pressure to act.
After discussion, a motion to table Bill 62‑91 was made and seconded; the council approved the motion by voice vote and the item was tabled for further study and follow-up with planning and zoning staff. Council members asked planning staff to return with a detailed explanation of the rationale for removing conditional-use review and to clarify how public notification and local concerns would be handled if the change were adopted.
The motion to table was recorded at the Aug. 12 meeting; no final action on the substantive zoning change was taken. The council noted that planning and zoning staff can return with more information before the council considers the bill again.
