Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Moratorium topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
O'Fallon council debates 12-month moratorium on large multifamily projects
Summary
Councilmembers debated a proposed 12-month moratorium that would pause approval of new multifamily buildings of five units or more while the city studies infrastructure, rezoning needs and community impacts; council agreed to a first reading and P&Z review but did not adopt the moratorium at this meeting.
Councilman Doug Link presented a draft ordinance proposing a 12-month moratorium on new multifamily residential structures that contain five or more living units, saying the pause would allow the city to "evaluate whether our current policies, infrastructure, and public services can sustainably support additional multifamily housing" (Councilmember Spencer).
The moratorium language described three primary sections: definitions of impacted development, a list of activities restricted during the moratorium, and a 12-month duration. Link said a supplemental "12‑month plan framework" would guide data collection and community engagement and that the proposal intentionally targeted higher-density projects while exempting single-family and lower-density structures.
Opponents warned the moratorium could harm investor confidence. Councilman Cascala argued that existing parcels already zoned for multifamily should be left alone and that a moratorium risks making property owners’ investments "worthless," and he urged limiting any restriction to avoid overreach. "I think a blanket ban on doing something like that just limits keeping young generations here," Cascala said, adding that apartments provide workforce housing for teachers, police and service workers.
Supporters said the pause is intended to be surgical, not sweeping. Councilmember Spencer said some recent projects are "luxury apartments" with rents that put them out of reach for many residents and that the pause would permit examination of school impacts, public‑safety response and infrastructure capacity. Councilman Link suggested the moratorium would send a clear policy signal to developers and could lead to rezoning or targeted infrastructure investments.
Staff and council members also discussed alternatives. Councilman Scott favored rezoning some parcels rather than a moratorium; others recommended outreach to property owners and work through Planning & Zoning. City attorney O'Keefe explained that conditional uses and PUDs are evaluated under specific standards and that the city may impose mitigation measures where code allows.
Action taken: the council scheduled the ordinance for first reading in two weeks and directed it to go to the Planning & Zoning Commission for public hearing and recommendation. No final moratorium adoption or vote on the ordinance occurred at this meeting.
