ORD-2005-201 - Family, Group, and Rehabilitative Care Zoning Ordinance Amendment

Browse Search

P14 �,)_ �das �ad J 3. Orange County Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments a. Family, Group, and Rehabilitative Care Amendments Consideration of amendments to bring the Zoning Ordinance in line with the State standard for each of these facilities including classification of the facilities, clearer definitions, approval procedures, and locational criteria. Planning Supervisor Robert Davis said that these text amendments are an effort to bring the ordinance closer to the State definitions. There may be some additional changes coming forth on the mental health portion of the rules. The three categories are family care, group care facilities, and rehabilitative care facilities. This falls into the category of residential uses for adult day care, Hospice facilities, assisted living facilities, group homes for the developmentally disabled, maternity homes, etc. These uses are allowed in all residential districts in the County. Recently, there have been some definition changes at the State level with regard to mental health, developmental disabilities, and substance abuse facilities and services. Through the definition changes, there are now some facilities that are classified as being residential family care homes as a use by right. They are proposing to allow the service code classifications (on page 3). The State does require that the lead management agency, the Local Management Entity, determine whether or not a facility is required. This is only for the mental health category. There must be a letter of support for the facilities. A lot of different agencies will have to be involved in this and zoning is just the land use portion of this. The rules are constantly changing at the State level. He said that he probably would not put the codes in the ordinance itself, except to maybe use it as a reference in the office to determine the categories. John Link said that he would urge being cautious prior to changing codes until there is a clear understanding of what is going to happen in mental health and other facilities. He could see that some codes might be created that would prevent some kind of facility from being served by the revenue stream. He said that they should do only what they have to do by some kind of federal regulations. Commissioner Gordon said that she feels a great need for the big picture in trying to adjust the regulations. She made reference to pages 12 and 13 and that definitions are being amended. She is not sure what the State is requiring of the County. She asked for a better overview of what is required. Robert Davis answered several clarifying questions for Commissioner Gordon. Commissioner Jacobs suggested that this be presented to the Planning Board and that Judy Truitt and Nancy Coston attend the meeting where this is presented. Commissioner Gordon said that this was the best effort to respond to a changing situation, but she would like to know the options. She would like a better explanation of what is being required and what the range of responses might be. Jay Bryan asked for another way to present the category because it is hard to grasp. He does not have a good understanding of how the permitting is done now in the County. A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Gordon to refer the proposed amendments to the Planning Board for a recommendation and returned no sooner than January 24, 2006. VOTE: UNANIMOUS