Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
12 <br /> 1 Link to currently adopted Comprehensive Plan: <br /> 2 https://www.orangecountync.gov/1238/Comprehensive-Land-Use <br /> 3 <br /> 4 Link to Master Aging Plan: https://www.orangecountync.gov/203/Master-Aging-Plan <br /> 5 <br /> 6 Link to Consolidated (Housing) Plan: <br /> 7 https://www.orangecountync.gov/DocumentCenter/View/l0806/Orange-County-NC- <br /> 8 Consolidated-Plan-FINAL?bidld=) <br /> 9 <br /> 10 Staff has reviewed the options presented in the Application and recommends that Family Care <br /> 11 Facility be added as a permitted use in the MPD-CD zoning district by adding an asterisk (*) <br /> 12 to the appropriate column on the line for use #44 (Family Care Facility). In reviewing the <br /> 13 application, staff discovered the definition of "Family Care Facility" in Article 10 (Definitions) <br /> 14 of the UDO contains an outdated reference to a State statute. Therefore, staff is <br /> 15 recommending an update to the definition as shown (red text is the proposed amendment <br /> 16 language): <br /> 17 <br /> 18 Family Care Facility <br /> 19 A facility which meets the definition of a family care home in NCGS 168 21 160D-907. <br /> 20 <br /> 21 Staff does not recommend the applicant's proposal to require additional use standards (by <br /> 22 adding a delta [A] symbol), as the State deems Family Care Facilities a permissible use in all <br /> 23 residential districts and discourages additional requirements beyond those in place for similar <br /> 24 residential uses. Family Care Facility is a permitted use (*) in all other Orange County zoning <br /> 25 districts that allow the use, and to introduce additional standards exclusively for the MPD-CD <br /> 26 is not recommended. <br /> 27 <br /> 28 Staff review of the amendment to UDO Section 3.8 regarding consistency with the <br /> 29 Comprehensive Plan only determined that the Board of Commissioners must act in <br /> 30 coordination with its action regarding the presented Comprehensive Plan amendments. The <br /> 31 UDO text amendment is unwarranted without the corresponding amendments to the <br /> 32 Comprehensive Plan. <br /> 33 <br /> 34 PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION <br /> 35 The Planning Board reviewed this application at its regular meetings on June 5 and July 10, 2024 <br /> 36 (Attachment A5). The Planning Board made three motions, all recommending the Board of County <br /> 37 Commissioners vote to deny the applications. The text amendment application was voted upon <br /> 38 8 — 1 to recommend denial, with the dissent being related to the need to bring the UDO into <br /> 39 alignment with NC General Statutes. The Planning Board voted unanimously (9 — 0) to <br /> 40 recommend that the BOCC vote to deny the 2030 Comprehensive Plan amendment because the <br /> 41 extension of the MPD-CD zoning district to rural activity nodes is inconsistent with the <br /> 42 comprehensive plan. The Planning Board also voted unanimously (9 — 0) to recommend denial <br /> 43 of the Zoning Atlas amendment application due to its present inconsistencies with the County's <br /> 44 adopted comprehensive plan and nonconformity with its adopted UDO, as reflected in the <br /> 45 Statement of Inconsistency (Attachment A8). <br /> 46 <br /> 47 PLANNING DIRECTOR'S RECOMMENDATIONS <br /> 48 The consistency of the Zoning Atlas Amendment with the 2030 Comprehensive Plan relies, in <br /> 49 part, on the Comprehensive Plan Amendments, [Attachments B1 — B7 (MA23-0004)]. As <br /> 50 discussed herein, the amendments to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan's FLUM and Appendix F are <br /> 51 necessary for a consistency finding on the zoning action, as required by NCGS 160D-605. <br />