City Council Presentation on Congregate Living Zoning Study and Sober House Moratorium - February 11, 2026
City Council Presentation on Congregate Living Zoning Study and Sober House Moratorium - February 11, 2026
On February 11, 2026, the St. Paul City Council received a presentation from Bill Dermady of the Department of Planning and Economic Development on the results of the Congregate Living Zoning Study (formerly the Sober Living Study). The study was initiated in August 2024 through a one-year moratorium to examine regulations for sober houses, supportive housing, and other congregate living facilities. The presentation covered definitions, legal context, issues leading to the moratorium, and recommendations from the Planning Commission. No formal votes were taken; the council will hold a first reading on March 4, 2026, and a public hearing on March 11, 2026.
Discussion Items
- Study Overview: Mr. Dermady reviewed the timeline: the moratorium was instituted in August 2024, a Planning Commission public hearing was held in October 2024, and the Planning Commission made its recommendation on February 4, 2026. The city council will have a first reading on March 4, 2026, and a public hearing on March 11, 2026.
- Definitions and Categories: The study covers several categories of congregate living. A sober house is defined as financially self-supporting, with no services, intended to be family-like. A supportive housing facility receives government funding and provides services. Other categories include shelter for battered persons, licensed correctional community residential facility, overnight shelter, emergency housing, and rooming houses. Rooming houses (individually rented bedrooms with community living space) are not allowed in as many districts and usually require a conditional use permit. Sober houses have a minimum separation distance of 330 feet from each other; supportive housing and other facilities must be 1,320 feet apart (600 feet in downtown). Rooming houses have no separation distance requirements.
- Issues Leading to the Moratorium: The primary issue was sober houses wanting to convert to supportive housing due to changes in state funding streams. When a sober house begins receiving outside funding, it no longer meets the definition of a sober house and must comply with supportive housing separation requirements (1,320 feet), which many could not meet. In 2025, there were ten variance requests for supportive housing facilities, seven clustered near West 7th or University Avenue. Additionally, a potential operator sought to house 30+ residents in a sober house with no staffing or services, which current zoning language ("shall be granted" for reasonable accommodations) might have allowed. DSI has been approving such requests up to the fire certificate of occupancy limit.
- Legal Context: The Americans with Disabilities Act and Fair Housing Amendments Act protect people with disabilities, including those recovering from substance abuse. The 1990 federal appeals case Family Style v. City of St. Paul upheld the city's minimum separation distances as protecting patients from reinstitutionalization. The city's current code requires all sober houses to request reasonable accommodations even if not needed, and includes language that such requests "shall be granted" automatically, which goes beyond federal requirements. State law has changed: in 2023 the state defined sober homes, and in 2024 it created a new definition of "recovery residences" (effective 2027) with two levels of certification. Level 1 aligns with the city's sober house definition; Level 2 would be staff-run and eligible for funding, pushing them into the supportive housing category. Also, the state's freestanding room and board program is being phased out. In April 2025, two major service providers (New Way and Evergreen) stopped redistributing state funds to third parties for sober residences due to legal concerns about kickbacks, leading providers to seek other state funding (e.g., Housing Supports), which placed them definitively in the supportive housing category.
- Planning Commission Recommendations: The Planning Commission made the following recommendations that the council will consider:
- Amend the reasonable accommodations process to align with federal law.
- Replace the requirement for all sober houses to request reasonable accommodations with a registration system.
- Cap the number of residents in a sober house at 10 (with possible exceptions via variance or legitimate reasonable accommodation request, evaluated case-by-case).
- Minor updates: rename "sober house" to "sober house financially self-supporting" to clarify; require a conditional use permit in fewer districts for shelters for battered persons; and other clarifications (e.g., nutritional services definition).
- No changes to the minimum separation distances: 330 feet for sober houses and 1,320 feet for supportive housing (600 feet in downtown). The Planning Commission debated but decided against reducing these distances, citing the importance of management quality and the risk of overwhelming certain corridors like University Avenue and West 7th. The 1,320-foot distance matches Minneapolis's requirement and is considered necessary to avoid recreating an institutional environment.
- Council Discussion: Council President and members asked clarifying questions. Councilmember Yang expressed concern about the reduction in available beds due to funding changes and suggested adding the issue to the city's legislative agenda. Councilmember Coleman asked about the rationale for the 10-resident cap; Mr. Dermady noted it was a historical number and more flexible than the maximum family size of 6. Councilmember Trust (likely Councilmember Just) commented on the need for clarity and appreciated the work. Council President asked about aligning city terms with state terms and about the effect on variance applicants. Mr. Dermady explained that without changing separation distances, facilities that had been seeking variances would still need a variance or limit to 6 (supportive housing as a family) or 10 (sober house). He also noted that the Planning Commission did not recommend regulating supportive housing in other ways (e.g., by size or housing first philosophy).
Key Outcomes
- No formal votes were taken at this meeting.
- The council is scheduled to conduct a first reading of the proposed ordinance changes on March 4, 2026, and a public hearing on March 11, 2026.
- Councilmember Yang indicated an intent to connect with community leaders and propose adding the issue of state funding for sober houses to the city's legislative agenda.
- The presentation and discussion served to inform council members in advance of the public hearing and legislative action.
Meeting Transcript
Councilmember Johnson. Seeing five present, two absent. Councilmember Johnson is excused. Great. Morning, everyone. We have one item on our agenda today, which is the sober housing moratorium study. I will open up Mr. Bill Dermady to present this item. Welcome, Mr. Dermady. Thank you, Council President, Council members. What was being called the sober living study is now been christened with an umbrella term, congregate living zoning study to encompass everything in that section of code. It's the same thing though. And I've got some items I'll run through in the presentation today, but maybe first I'll just refresh you on the timeline. You instituted the moratorium back in August, gave us one year to get a study back. There was a planning commission public hearing in October. Planning Commission then made the recommendation just last week. So we're heading towards a uh March 4th first reading, March 11th public hearing at City Council. So coming to you soon. Um there are a number of categories of congregate living in our code to be aware of here that are addressed or at least considered in this study, including a sober house, just for definition terms, so we understand these. Sober house is for people recovering from chemical dependency. It is financially self-supporting, so it does not get outside funding. It has no services, and it's intended to be like a family. So that's a sober house as we call it in St. Paul. A it is sometimes confused with a supportive housing facility. Supportive housing facility also can be for people recovering from chemical dependency. And there are some other categories as well. But these usually recur receive government funding and they have services. Those are the two main categories to be aware of. Uh there are some others that are addressed shelter for battery persons, license correctional community residential facility, overnight shelter, emergency housing. And then rooming house is sort of its own category. Um, but important to keep in mind anything that we do, you might want to think about would this push people to try to reclassify themselves as rooming houses. Rooming houses are not allowed in as many places, and they usually have a conditional use permit attached to them. That's like individually rented bedrooms with community living space, is basically what a rooming house is. Mr. Germany, before you keep going, just just to sort of hammer home the point. Um, because I remember when I was on the planning commission and we were discussing the distance requirement between sober homes, and I remember at the time, um, much like you've described it here, but just to be super clear, a sober home at the time was described as it could just be you know, four or five unrelated adults who decide who are recovering from chemical dependency or from alcoholism, whatever the case might be, who say, you know, we're going to um live together so as to sort of support one another in staying clean and almost um much more informal than some of these other types that you're describing. Is that still also true? And therefore, I know we we talked about this as you know, this is this is a home like any other home, and in fact, it's probably like the least disruptive home you'll have on your block in some ways if folks are committing to that by living together. Um so is that still also true? That is the intent, but I will talk about an issue of how that intent has been stretched. Okay. Um, sometimes beyond recognition. But that is still the intent of what a zoning a sober house sober house should be. Okay. Yes, correct. Anyone else have any questions? Because there's a this is a really important, I think, first slide, and I just want to make sure we stop there. Case okay.
openpublica.com