Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Group Homes topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council grants variance to allow adjacent personal care homes to operate within half‑mile limit; vote 3‑2
Summary
By a 3‑2 vote, Kerrville City Council granted a variance from the city’s half‑mile separation rule for boarding/group homes so the owner can operate an existing adjacent personal care home at 613 and 617 (shared roof line); council made a narrow finding under Chapter 30 and allowed conditions may be applied later.
Kerrville City Council voted 3‑2 on March 11 to grant a variance from the city code’s half‑mile separation requirement for boarding‑home facilities so that an adjacent personal care operation may continue in or expand into a neighboring unit.
Planning staff explained the code (section 30‑16) requires a half‑mile separation between boarding/boarding‑home facilities to avoid concentration in a single neighborhood. The applicant, Rick Perry, told council he operates licensed personal care homes at 617 and seeks approval to use 613 (an adjoining townhouse with a common wall) as a second licensed house. Perry said the households are small, staffed, and intended for elderly residents; combined occupant count across both properties was stated as seven.
Neighbors and a local property owner — Jeff Hunter, director of golf at River Hill Country Club — objected on safety and liability grounds, saying residents had previously wandered onto neighboring properties and that proximity to the golf course fairway posed risks. The River Hill representative asked council to deny the variance for public‑safety reasons.
Council discussion focused narrowly on the statutory criteria for the Chapter 30 variance: whether strict enforcement of the half‑mile rule was necessary to serve its intended purpose, or whether the rule would create an inefficient use of land or undue hardship in this particular situation. Several councilmembers noted the two addresses share a roofline and are effectively one building, pointing out the small scale of operations and that the owner had engaged neighbors before operating.
After public comment and deliberation council voted to grant the variance 3‑2. Council members and staff noted the variance is specific to this request under Chapter 30 and that additional permits, inspections and code compliance matters (including building, fire and licensing reviews) remain subject to later, separate processes. One councilmember said the variance would “run with the request” for the current circumstances and that future changes of use or ownership could trigger additional reviews.
The motion approving the variance carried 3‑2; the council asked staff to continue reviewing operational and code issues that will arise in separate permitting processes.
