Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Special Land Use topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Neighbors and supporters clash over proposed group home at Button Gate Court; council defers decision

Stonecrest City Council · January 29, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Francine Williams sought approval to operate a licensed child‑care institution (CCI) at 3802 Button Gate Court; supporters cited a regional shortage of placements, neighbors raised parking and safety concerns, and council voted 4-1 to defer to Feb. 23 for decision.

Stonecrest City Council on Jan. 28 heard hours of public testimony on a request to convert 3802 Button Gate Court into a child‑care institution that would house up to six teenagers.

Applicant Francine Williams said the licensed home would serve youth ages 12–18 and that placements are handled by placement agencies; she described staff plans and stated, "I will have up to 6 children there." Supporters, including a mental‑health professional and neighborhood residents who submitted letters, said supervised group homes are a lawful and necessary response to a shortage of placements in the region.

Opponents—multiple neighbors and emailed commenters—argued the cul‑de‑sac has limited parking, narrow streets, and that a group home would change neighborhood character and create safety and visitation pressures. Written opposition said group care often involves frequent shifts, transport vehicles and additional visits that would burden a small residential street.

Council members repeatedly asked for operational details: the applicant said placements would be managed by state placement agencies, that most residents would be school‑age and in school during the day, and that the home would have caregivers on site. Staff said some required information had been provided since the last hearing but that planning commission recommended a full‑cycle deferral to allow public review.

After public comment and questions, council voted 4-1 to defer the special land use permit to the Feb. 23 meeting for decision (Councilman Fye voted no). The deferral gives staff time to reconcile outstanding documentation and to ensure neighbors receive any new filings.

The case highlights tension between neighborhood compatibility and local efforts to expand housing and services for vulnerable youth; council directed staff to include the zoning criteria and any outstanding materials in the Feb. 23 packet.