Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Group Homes topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Taunton council splits vote on zoning edits, continues debate on family and group‑home rules to Oct. 14
Summary
The council approved targeted edits to the city's mixed‑use rules but delayed final action on proposed changes to the definitions of "family" and "group home," citing a need for standards and oversight to protect residents and neighbors. The hearing was continued to Oct. 14 after a roll‑call vote.
The Taunton City Council on Sept. 22 approved selected technical edits to the city's zoning code but voted to continue further action on changes to the definitions of "family" and "group home" after members raised concerns about oversight and resident safety.
The council reopened a hearing continued from Sept. 9 and heard a briefing from Kevin Scanlon, who said the proposals ‘‘were to update the definition of a family, in conformance with the recent Supreme Court decision’’ and to ‘‘simplify the verbiage’’ of the group‑home definition and correct an omission adding transit‑oriented development to overlay district lists. Scanlon described the aim as giving the city more control when large congregate living arrangements locate in neighborhoods, saying the change was not meant to stop homes from opening but to allow the city to require ‘‘landscaping screening, noise’’ conditions where appropriate.
Why it matters: Councilors who represent nearby residents said zoning verbiage alone will not provide the protections they want. Councilor Sanders urged caution, saying the council must establish ‘‘guardrails’’ to ensure that residences for people with disabilities are ‘‘healthy, safe, and meet the needs of their residents’’ before approving a full package.
Legal and procedural context: City attorneys noted a second legal point: certain programs with an educational component can qualify for an educational‑use exemption under Massachusetts law and would not be subject to zoning restrictions. Attorney Costa said the city has seen at least one such program in the last five years and that a typical sober house without an educational curriculum would still require a special permit.
Council action: Members agreed to separate votes. The council voted to approve section 440‑404 and changes in Attachment 1 (voice vote on the floor). On the remaining questions about the definition of family and other oversight provisions, Councilor Sanders moved to continue the hearing to allow the city solicitor and stakeholders to develop standards; Councilor Pastel seconded. On a roll‑call vote to continue the balance of the matter to Oct. 14, the motion passed (Coit: No; Duarte: Yes; Pastel: Yes; Quintel: No; Sanders: Yes; Pottier/Podier: Yes; Martin: Yes; Borges: Yes).
Councilor viewpoints: Scanlon argued the proposed edits restore a prior approach that had been altered after a Supreme Court decision and said the change enables the city to address instances where a large number of unrelated persons use a dwelling. Councilor Quaid asked whether the change would ‘‘shut the door on quality residences for people with disabilities;’’ Scanlon responded, ‘‘I don't believe that it does that.’’ Councilor Sanders said he would not vote to move forward until the council establishes more of the ‘‘back end’’ protections, including possible criteria for buffers, screening and standards the council would expect in special permits.
What happens next: The council continued the hearing to Oct. 14 to allow the city solicitor, staff and stakeholders to draft and propose additional guardrails and to return with more detailed recommendations. The motion to continue passed by roll call and the council closed the zoning item for the day.
