Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Daycare Expansion topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Staff outlines conditions as commission reviews plan to expand home daycare at 3599 Deerfield
Summary
City planning staff summarized a conditional-use request to increase capacity at a home-based daycare at 3599 Deerfield Drive from six to 12 children and recommended several conditions—certification of upgrades, restricted hours, a prohibition on pick-up/drop-off on Atkins Trim Boulevard and limits on employee parking—while noting neighbors had submitted written objections.
A staff member told the Hoover City Planning Commission during pre-meeting review that an applicant seeks to upgrade a family daycare at 3599 Deerfield Drive from a six-child family home daycare to a 12-child group daycare home, a change that triggers conditional-use review.
Staff outlined conditions they would recommend if the commission offers a favorable recommendation to city council: all required upgrades must be planned, permitted, completed and inspected and a new certificate of occupancy must be issued before increasing the number of children; no pick-up or drop-off service will be allowed on Atkins Trim Boulevard; the group daycare would be limited to a maximum of 12 children; hours of operation would be 6 a.m. to 5 p.m.; no employee parking would be permitted on the street; and the business owner must renew the business license with the updated classification before a certificate of occupancy is issued.
On staffing, a staff member summarized state requirements: "Our understanding is up to 6 children, you have 1 faculty member on-site at all times, and that meets the requirements per the Alabama Department of Human Resources. . . . [I]t looks like, according to the application, there would be 2 substitutes designated in case . . . the full time faculty members are absent," the staff member said. The staff member also told commissioners that written correspondence from notified neighbors requested denial of the application.
A committee member pressed staff on whether the new request differed from a prior city council denial; staff said the current request "looks very much the same." Another committee member questioned wording in the staff recommendation; the staff member replied, "We are not making a positive recommendation," noting the presentation was for the commission's consideration under the city's process.
The pre-meeting transcript contains no recorded vote on the item. Staff noted the conditional-use pathway and the commission's recommendation would go to the city council for formal action.
