Browse
Search
7_10_24 Planning Board Minutes
OrangeCountyNC
>
Advisory Boards and Commissions - Active
>
Orange County Planning Board
>
Minutes
>
2024
>
7_10_24 Planning Board Minutes
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/4/2025 1:11:12 PM
Creation date
8/4/2025 1:10:51 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
BOCC
Meeting Type
Regular Meeting
Document Type
Advisory Bd. Minutes
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
39
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Approved 8.7.24 <br /> <br />current AR zoning, however, already permits family care centers without rezoning. The 453 <br />claim that these centers should be a permitted use that family care homes should be a 454 <br />permitted use in MPD-CDs to align with state law raises several unanswered questions. 455 <br />While North Carolina law defines family care homes as a permissible use in all residential 456 <br />districts, an MPD-CD district provides for nonresidential and mixed-use developments as 457 <br />well as large scale subdivisions and allows quote “flexibility to accommodate land use 458 <br />adjustments in response to evolving market trends.” It appears from communications 459 <br />over the past year and a half the planning staff and the developer have been discussing 460 <br />who staff or developer would request this change to permit family care homes in MPD-CD 461 <br />zoning. This proposal is part of a wholesale attempt by the developer to re-write County 462 <br />ordinances and comprehensive planning to benefit a single developer. Please do not 463 <br />approve this proposed amendment, given that the motivation for it and beneficiaries of the 464 <br />proposed changes remain unclear. Please note that the analysis and staff 465 <br />recommendation in the agenda packet referring to healthcare include inaccuracies. The 466 <br />statement of consistency claims that the development would provide outpatient medical 467 <br />care and I heard earlier a discussion about a group medical center. This is unfounded 468 <br />because according to definitions in state law and the health and human services 469 <br />department, a family care facility does not require skilled nursing or physicians for 470 <br />licensing and would not provide medical care, outpatient, or inpatient. It's simply a facility 471 <br />providing personal care for daily living. There would be zero harm in not recommending 472 <br />the proposed UDO amendments from Item 8. Not recommending this change would not 473 <br />harm people seeking to establish a family care home in a residential district because 474 <br />family care homes are permitted in residential zones, including agricultural residential. 475 <br />Item 9, rezoning from agricultural residential to master plan conditional would streamline 476 <br />the application process but only benefiting the developer to the detriment of the 477 <br />surrounding community. According to the UDO, MPD-CD districts shall be limited to 478 <br />transition land use categories within the Orange County planning jurisdiction and rural 479 <br />community nodes. By design, our low-density agricultural residential zone without water 480 <br />or sewer lines, public transit, or sidewalks, is not slated to support the massive 481 <br />infrastructure needs of high-density development without depleting limited water 482 <br />resources and irrevocably transforming farmland, waterways, and woodlands. The 483 <br />proposed rezoning is wildly incompatible with the surrounding multi-generational 484 <br />community. Recommending the proposed rezoning and a decade or more of construction 485 <br />would likely displace existing community members, heritage farms, and young farmers 486 <br />currently thriving and supporting older relatives who are truly aging in place. The 487 <br />developer proposes changes that threaten not only this rural community but all of Orange 488 <br />County's current and future farmers, food economy, consumers of local products, and 489 <br />open space. The Morrow Mill and Goldmine Loop residents are a model of successful 490 <br />rural community. We're thriving despite a series of problematic proposals for the area that 491 <br />have put farms, public health, and the environment at risk. We firmly reject this project 492 <br />because it threatens an existing community. I want to clarify some key information about 493 <br />diabase dikes. In 1991, an attempt to site a landfill was defeated because it would have 494 <br />leached contaminants into ground water based on a rock formation called a diabase dike 495 <br />on Orange Chapel Clover Garden Road, just up the road from this facility. In 2008, 496 <br />commissioners learned of the presence of the same diabase dike in the same area 497 <br />proposed for developing the UNC Airport at the time that was defeated. More recently, 498 <br />neighbors at the corner of Morrow Mill and Highway 54 have had their wells contaminated 499 <br />by leakage from a previous gas station. This developer's proposal for massive water 500 <br />draws and disposal of liquid sewage would further threaten these wells, surrounding 501 <br />neighbors with a cluster of polluting infrastructure co-located next to them and raising 502
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.