Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Group Homes topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission examines group-home ordinance changes amid Fair Housing constraints
Summary
Commissioners reviewed draft amendments to the group-home ordinance to add numeric limits and clearer definitions. Staff warned federal Fair Housing Act protections limit where group homes for people with disabilities may be restricted, so the commission tasked staff to survey other cities and return recommendations.
Hooper City planning commissioners spent substantial time on June 11 reviewing proposed amendments to the city's group-home ordinance, focusing on definitions and numeric limits for different facility types.
Commissioners noted the current code defines "family" and allows up to four unrelated persons in a dwelling; elderly and disability group homes are treated differently and can be up to eight persons. A staff member reminded the commission that the federal Fair Housing Act protects persons with disabilities and related housing; "you have to allow them anywhere that you would allow residential development," the staff member said, adding the city can still regulate size, parking and access.
Why it matters: The draft code includes categories such as daycare, children's treatment facilities and drug- and alcohol-treatment facilities, but several categories lack explicit maximum occupancy numbers. Commissioners flagged that children's treatment and adult treatment facilities in the draft have either no clear maximum or use different thresholds; daycare and foster-care categories have specific numeric limits elsewhere in state code. Commissioners worried the draft language could conflict with state or federal rules or leave the city vulnerable to claims of unlawful discrimination if limits are imposed improperly.
Staff direction and next steps: Commissioners asked staff to research how surrounding cities regulate occupancy and facility definitions and to return with comparative examples. They discussed using maximums by zone type (residential vs. commercial) and leaving small group homes (four or fewer) as permitted without conditional-use review while setting a residential maximum that would require conditional use if exceeded. The item was a discussion item only; no changes were approved at the meeting.
The commission also asked staff to clarify how state code and the city's code (listings such as 102B-6) interact with the proposed amendments and whether any placements could be court-ordered or otherwise restricted under state law. Staff will gather model language and numerical ranges from neighboring jurisdictions for the commission's next review.
