Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Family Daycare topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lincoln planning board backs revised family day care rules, recommends special-use permits for larger home providers
Summary
The Lincoln Planning Board voted to recommend zoning changes that define family day care home sizes and add special-use permit criteria for homes serving 7–12 individuals; the Technical Review Committee urged removing age-based distinctions and treating the 7–12 cap as a total headcount.
The Lincoln Planning Board voted to send a positive recommendation to the Town Council for amendments to the zoning ordinance that define and regulate family day care homes and add special-use permit criteria for larger home-based day cares.
The proposal narrows the family day care home definition and creates a new category for homes serving seven to 12 individuals that would require a special-use permit. "This is the family day care," Stephanie, a planning staff member, said while summarizing the draft changes and the Technical Review Committee’s (TRC) suggestions.
Nut graf: The change clarifies three thresholds: (1) family day care home up to six individuals (permitted in residential districts), (2) the prior allowance of two additional related children tied to the caregiver is removed for the special-use category, and (3) a new 7–12 category will be handled by special-use permit with objective criteria inserted in the special-use section of the zoning code. The TRC recommended treating 7–12 as a total number (no extra related children) and removing an age-based cap because it was not enforceable.
Board members and staff discussed enforcement and safety implications. Board members asked how age and staffing ratios would be monitored; staff and other speakers noted those details are largely regulated by state licensing and staffing-ratio rules rather than the town zoning code. The planning staff said the state fire marshal and state regulations govern fire/safety standards and that the town’s building official and zoning official could review permits or investigate on complaint.
Several members raised safety and infrastructure concerns that could be relevant when a special-use permit is considered, including parking for drop-off and pick-up, hours of operation, and whether additional building or fire-code upgrades (for example, sprinklers) would be triggered for larger operations. Planning staff said such requirements would be evaluated as part of the special-use review and through applicable state building and fire regulations.
During discussion, the TRC’s changes were confirmed: remove the age-based distinction; treat 7–12 as the total number; and place special-use criteria in a new ordinances subsection (2-60-68) with objective standards for approval. Stephanie noted the TRC voted to recommend the revisions to the planning board.
After discussion, Member Riley moved to send a positive recommendation to the Town Council with the corrections discussed; Member Rahman seconded. The board voted in favor; the chair announced, "The ayes have it." The motion records the board’s recommendation but does not itself change the zoning code; final adoption would be a Town Council decision following the public hearing scheduled in May.
Ending: The planning board’s recommendation returns the refined language and objective criteria to the Town Council for its public hearing and possible adoption; the board did not enact ordinance text itself and noted enforcement and technical fire/inspection requirements remain under state authority and building officials at permitting or complaint review.
