Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ordinance Amendment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning commission advances group-home ordinance changes to clarify family definitions
Summary
Commissioners reviewed proposed updates to Hooper City Code to simplify the definition of "family" and to set clearer thresholds for group homes: permitting up to four unrelated occupants in residential zones, requiring conditional-use review for five to eight occupants, and prohibiting groups larger than eight as residential uses.
The Hooper City Planning Commission on July 25 discussed proposed amendments to the city's group-home and family definitions intended to reduce legal ambiguity and align rules across residential, daycare and foster-care categories.
A commissioner explained the current code lists multiple definitions of "family" (two people, a single person, related-by-marriage groups, and separate allowances for disabled or elderly groupings). The proposed ordinance would consolidate the definition and set clear numerical thresholds so staff and applicants can apply rules consistently. "If we're gonna have a number, then sometimes we hit 6 in certain ones and things of that nature," one commissioner said, arguing consistency will reduce difficult judgment calls for staff and the planning commission.
Under the draft language discussed, residences with up to four unrelated persons would be permitted uses in residential zones. Homes with between five and eight unrelated occupants would require a conditional use permit; applications for nine or more occupants would not be allowed as a residential use and would fall under different zoning categories. Counsel and staff noted similar numeric limits across daycare and foster-care sections will be considered to avoid conflicting standards.
Commissioners discussed reasonable accommodations and review steps; staff said an administrative review process would ensure compliance with group-home requirements while allowing the city to facilitate necessary services. The commission directed staff and legal counsel to prepare a consolidated draft for public hearing and recommendation to the city council at the next meeting.
The discussion did not produce a final vote; the commission requested revised language so the ordinance can be publicly noticed and moved forward to council consideration.
