Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Group Homes Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning Commission begins drafting rules for group homes, directs staff to compile models and consult licensing
Summary
Commissioners opened an extensive discussion on amending zoning to define and regulate group homes, debated conditional‑use versus permitted use in single‑family zones, and directed staff to compile example ordinances and consult the state Office of Licensing before continuing the item next month.
The Sunset Planning Commission on Nov. 13, 2025 spent the bulk of its meeting discussing how to define and regulate group homes in the city's zoning code.
The item — introduced by the presiding officer as "discuss amending zone code to allow for group homes" — prompted commissioners to seek clarity on terminology (group home, residential care, assisted living), existing local uses, and the interplay of city zoning with state licensing. Unidentified Speaker 5 summarized the landscape: "The cities around us have different definitions. Some of them state group homes. Some of them have separate categories for residential facilities for persons with disabilities." Commissioners repeatedly referenced operations run by Davis Behavioral Health (DBH) and acknowledged the city already has several DBH‑operated properties in single‑family (R1) areas.
Major points of debate
- Definition and categorization: Commissioners discussed whether to adopt separate categories for assisted living for the elderly, residential facilities for persons with disabilities, and group homes, and whether to explicitly exclude health‑care facilities from a group‑home definition.
- Zoning approach: Several commissioners favored allowing group homes as a conditional use in R1 (single‑family) zones so the city can evaluate parking, staffing, density and neighborhood impacts on a case‑by‑case basis. "I would lean towards us looking towards building stuff to be a conditional use in R1," one commissioner said.
- Grandfathering and licensing: The commission debated whether existing operations should be grandfathered and whether the city should require operators to obtain a city business or rental license in addition to state licensing. Commissioners noted state licensing sometimes lags in updating records; one commissioner described a lengthy Office of Licensing inspection and data entry delay.
- Density and public safety: Commissioners discussed spacing limits (an example provision that was struck in a sample code would have required 3/4‑mile spacing between group homes) and noted clusters of DBH properties on adjacent lots, raising concerns about parking and additional calls for police or fire response.
Staff direction and next steps
Commissioners directed staff to compile model ordinances and definitions (the Clearfield code, section 11‑13‑21, was cited as a useful example), obtain addresses and zoning information from the police chief for existing facilities, and contact the state Office of Licensing for guidance on licensing categories and practical requirements. Staff (referred to as "Sarah" in the transcript) was asked to compile examples and circulate them to commissioners individually (not "reply all") to avoid creating a quorum in email communications. The commission agreed to continue the item at next month's meeting after staff research and attorney review.
Why it matters: Group‑home regulation touches multiple areas of city policy — land use, public safety, and social services. The commission's decision on whether to treat group homes as conditional uses in R1 will affect permitting, public notification, and the city's ability to place operational conditions on facilities.
The commission did not adopt draft language at the Nov. 13 meeting; it set research and drafting tasks for staff and scheduled the topic to return for further deliberation.
