Planning Board

Afternoon. Good afternoon. Welcome to the town of Apex planning board meeting. Today's date is April 13, 2026. Uh I'd like to lead us in please bow your head in prayer, please. Dear Lord, as we gather our our thoughts, steady our emotions, and direct our decisions, help us act with wisdom, fairness, and integrity for the good of Apex and all its people. Amen.

Amen.

Please stand for the pledge of allegiance. I pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

All right. Items of information. Do we have any items of info from staff? Hey Dian,

good afternoon. We do have a couple of items. One is exciting changes are starting on April 18th for Go Apex. We're going to have a new hourly service on Sundays for Route One. And we're going to have 30 minute frequency Monday through Saturday from 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. for Route One. Um so that'll be twice as many buses coming by each stop. And then hourly service continues Monday through Saturday from 7 to 10. And the door-to-door service will now be operated by go carry which expands the service uh for Sunday service. And then the second one is peak plan 2055 is well underway. Several of you were able to attend our public forum on March 25th. But for anyone in the

audience or anyone that was who missed the live event, uh there's information about five growth scenarios posted at www.apexnc.org. org/pakplan and um you can make comments on those scenarios through April 27th.

That's all.

Thank you, Diane.

Okay, now we will open public comment. Uh if you've not done so already, to your left, you can sign in to speak on any agenda or non-aggenda items. The purpose of public comment is to allow public to speak on items that do not appear on this agenda. any member of the public wishing to comment on public hearing items will be called at the appropriate time later in the agenda. Uh we do ask that all comments be limited to three minutes and not be repetitive. If there's a large number of speakers for one particular item, the planning board uh may ask one individual to speak for the entire group and limit the comments to nine minutes. Do we have anyone signed up to speak on any non-aggenda item tonight? Hello, sir. I know I'm the first on the agenda, so or on the list. Jeff Roach, Peak Engineering and Design. Uh it is public forum tonight, but I am here this evening to discuss uh new business item number one. Since it's a new business item, is not a public forum item. Um specifically, I want to address uh item number four in the UDO amendments. It's in reference to the changing of the requirements or standards for the environmental advisory board. Um, at present, the environmental advisory board makes a recommendation to both the planning board and the town council on zonings related to environmental warm season grasses, uh, invasive species and so on. Um, there is currently an amendment here tonight that you guys are going to hear from staff under new business that allows the environmental advisory board to not only make a recommendation for environmental conditions that are that they would like to see implemented, but to also make a zoning recommendation to council based

on those same conditions. So if we as engineers or attorneys stand up to present a case and the environmental advisory board does not feel that the uh the the commitment from from the engineer architect is not strong enough then they can make a recommendation directly to you guys and the council to deny a reszoning at present. I don't believe that's how they operate. They simply are an advisory board to the council and planning board. Um I think it presents a lot of problems. It usurps some of the powers that you guys have. Uh you guys are a very technical board. you re review for ordinance items. I am concerned that the environmental advisory board and this UDO amendment will then give more power to the environmental advisory board to make recommendations for approval or denial to council. Whether they whether I agree or disagree with what their their motion is, I think the ordinance is very clear of separation of powers between the planning board environmental advisory board as recommendations. So, it's just a concern on my part. I don't know if they can do it legislatively. I don't know how it works. I just see it on the agenda tonight. It very much concerns me that EAB will start making recommendations um if we don't agree to 27 environmental conditions. So that's all it is. I appreciate you guys listening. Give me uh a minute and a half or so to speak. Appreciate it.

Thank you, Mr. Roach. Okay. And then we have we have anyone else that would like to speak on any non-aggenda item tonight?

No one has signed up.

Hearing none, we will close public comment and we'll move on to consent item number one, the minutes from the March 9th, 2026 regular meeting. I know everyone's had an opportunity to review.

I Sarah would like to make a motion to approve.

We have a motion to approve from Sarah. Do we have a second?

Second. How about it, Daniel?

Second from Daniel. All that in favor say I. I.

All oppose.

Motion carried.

And we'll move into public hearing section. Public hearing has the same three-minute rule. We will uh now open item number one. Miss June with public hearing. Possible motion regarding reszoning case 26 CZ01 8905 Castleberry Road.

Good afternoon uh planning board chair and planning board members. Uh this is located in northwestern area of town um near Wake County and Chattam County line. So this is south of Castleberry Road and then Council Drive is along here which is a private drive. Um and then here's the of course the Chattam County line. This project site was reviewed by planning board on December 8th, 2025. Um and then a page one of your staff report states that history and that was a proposed zone underneath 225 CZ11 for low density residential conditional zoning. So going from two lots to four lots. uh planning board if you remember recommended denial and the project was never before town council as the applicant withdrew that project 25 CZ1. So then the applicant submitted another application 26 CZ1 and that's for a proposed rural residential conditional zoning and going from two lots to the three lots. Um for the existing condition the parcel includes a single family home. You can just barely see it in there. Mature trees and then there's an existing um stream that comes through diagonally. And uh the larger parcel is 2 acres and then the smaller parcel down here is one acre. Um so the existing zoning district is Wake County residential ADW and then the surrounding

area this is Lake Castle Barrett low density conditional zoning and um then Wake County all around uh for ADW with single family homes. Um so the proposed uh zoning district is rural residential conditional zoning. The current land use map is rural residential I mean rural density residential and if reszone is proposed the 2045 land use map would change to a classification of um rural transition residential. Uh the neighborhood meetings were conducted on February 5th, 2026 and March 5th, 2026, and those are attached to your staff report. Wake County Public School indicates elementary, middle, and high schools within the current assignment area are anticipated to have sufficient capacity for future students. Transportation to schools outside of the um current assignment area should be anticipated in school expansion or construction within the next five years may address concerns at the elementary, middle, and high school grade level. So the proposed um uses for the uh the zoning district are single family dwelling, accessory, apartment, utility, park, active, passive, and greenway. And um here's a summary of the proposed conditions underneath design condition and maximum three lots. Minimum lot size shall be 35,000 square feet. So average lot size at 42,000 square ft after um rightway dedication. 40 foot undisturbed type B buffer um landscape buffer along the eastern and southern property line. and then a six foot high privacy fence outside that required landscape buffer along the

southern um property line and um install evergreen trees along the eastern property line and that would be a type A um buffer standards covenant shall not restrict the construction of accessory dwelling units and an addition um condition regarding accessory dwelling units whether attached or detached shall be limited to one bedroom, not exceed 1,500 square ft or 40% of the primary dwelling unit, whichever is less. And then um for the transportation infrastructure condition, so the developer shall construct and dedicate an extension of that Castleberry Road from the existing terminus of state maintenance. So, at the end, uh, right where Sleepy Valley Road was, go right here, it the pavement ends and then it's just, um, like a rock dirt road. And so they would as a 22 foot wide public street in a minimum 50 foot wide um rideway based on town um of Apex rural residential street standards and also construct a 5- foot wide sidewalk along the project um frontage. Developer shall terminate Castleberry Road with a public culac. Each lot shall be served by single driveway and all driveways shall exclusively access the public street extension of Castleberry Road. And then construction activity shall be restricted to Monday through Saturday no later than 700 p.m. And then construction vehicles shall not use Sleepy Valley Road to access the properties. Uh they also included eight environmental conditions. Um those are on page four of your staff report. Um the concerning the the grasses and the warm seasonal along with um the 220 volt

for the garage and then solar conduits and then eight architectural conditions. Um some of those are such as garage doors with windows not to exceed 50% of the total width of the house for the garage front porches minimum six feet in depth. And then due to the small area, the project was exempt from going to the EAB um park and recreation advisory board and um they did not have to deal with um affordable housing. So the rule um the proposal of as far as the zoning and changing to rural transition residential that classification is defined as a transition between more rural density areas and low density residential areas. So looking at the surrounding area, Lake Castleberry subdivision came in at 1.28 28 um units per acre. And this proposed project is um at 1.0 and and then east, west, and south. Of course, that's a um less of a density at 0.5 and then one unit um per five acres. So just to set up the rural density residential one unit per five acres and then the next step is rural transition residential that's one unit per acre and then the next one um is low density residential that's up to three units per an acre. So um planning board I mean planning staff recommends approval of reszoning 26 CZ01 as proposed by the applicant. Uh the 2045 land use designates the site as rural density residential classification. The applicant proposes a resoning to rural residential conditional zoning with a maximum of three lots at one unit

per acre. And if the properties are reszoned as proposed that 2045 land use um map will automatically be amended to rural transition residential. The proposed resoning to rural residential conditional zoning will provide the flexibility to accommodate one additional single family lot. And the proposed resoning is reasonable in the public interest because the proposed resoning will implement stricter environmental conditions than the UDO requires and will allow single family lots that are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood character as it provides a transition between more rural residential areas and that low density um residential areas which is Lake Castle Berry subdivision. Furthermore, the proposed resoning requires improvements to Castlebury Road infrastructure from the end of the existing pavement on Castlebury Road to Council Drive. So that would end as a culac. And with that, the applicant is here to answer any questions you have.

Thank you, June. Any questions for June?

June, I just want to make sure I got right. The rural density residential future land use is one dwelling unit per five acres. Rural transition is one dwelling unit per one acre and then low density is up to three

up to three units per acre.

Okay.

June, the reason that you did not approve or recommend it in December, but you are now, is because

planning staff was stating that they needed to come in as a lower density. Um, At that point they were underneath low density uh residential for the land use. So they essentially take two jumps from where they are now and this is just one um at a higher rate.

Okay.

At one unit per acre.

Okay. So and because the properties that

are there are one house per five acres right now or thereabouts. Is that

that's the classification? There's a couple of them that are lower than five acres, but

You know, that just goes with

Okay, great. Thank you.

Was there any the I mean, sorry, we got some emails from residents, the ones that had the a um business, tourism business, and they had a request about how the traffic might come in if this was approved. Did you guys take a look at that request? And is that I can't I couldn't tell from this which way the traffic would come in and if that would impact the the um business and I know they have animals and things. I just wanted to understand.

Yeah, that would um like I said the pavement stops about right here

if I'm correct. Um, and then it turns into a dirt road. And then as far as the conditions, a colasac would be put in right here. So people can access their lots and then go back out. So when we went out there to look at the site, it falls off pretty a pretty good grade. I don't not sure if anybody even uses that council drive. So that's why we were just going to end it right there.

And they would just pull straight in this way. Is that how it would be?

Yes. That

So they're not turning in towards the other property.

The lots. Uh and the applicant might be able to speak to that, but they are coming straight down like this. So

Okay. That was a condition, wasn't it? All driveways have to come off of Castleberry.

Yes.

Thank you.

Thank you, June. Uh would the applicant like to speak?

Good afternoon. Uh Will Norton, Jones Canson engineer 221 North Salem Street. Thank you June and uh planning staff for all the help and um continuous massaging and working for this reasonzoning case. Obviously, she kind of laid the land for what it was before and what it has evolved uh over time and um so appreciate all the work that she's done with that, you know, um trips out to the site and whatnot. Um really trying to bring the best case forward for this and and taking what y'all said last time into consideration and then bringing that into this case now. Um, so I I feel like we've done that and um with with staff's help. It's been um one of those things where kind of all parties involved lead to hopefully a really a really good outcome here. But um just wanted to highlight a few of those things and June kind of hit the nail on the head with most of this. But the the low density the real residential going to the one unit per acre maximum. Um and we have two lots of record. So, um just adding that third lot would be the maximum here. Um you there were some uh concerns from an accessory dwelling unit standpoint from residential neighbors not wanting to have an unlimited um you know size and and unrestricted to to some extent from a ADU. So that's where that um kind of condition got formulated from. And so that also kind of comes from the housing department here where affordable housing is obviously a a point of uh you know emphasis here in in Apex now. And so they want to see that condition. And so this being able to provide that but also um kind of meet in the middle is is one thing that um we added into this case. um increasing the buffer from 20 to 40 ft as previous to to this one is uh has been um hopefully you know shows our willingness to to

work with the surrounding neighbors and as well as the type A uh evergreens and the fence. Um, so not building council drive. I know uh the the impervious out in this area June mentioned is about a 17 or 18 foot wide gravel road from the end of Calibbury to get access to this property. We were showing you know the the extension of Calibbury as well as Council Drive. And so limiting that to ending a culde-sac um right at the pump station I think is beneficial you know not only for the restriction of impervious and and limiting that to only what's really necessary to access the site but um the pump station right across the street the few times that I've driven out to the site generally speaking there's always a town Apex truck that's coming out there at some point in time to look at the pump station so kind of helping that gravel road get brought up to standards uh from the town apex road standards even though in this real residential area um you know I think will be helpful and they have a concrete driveway and uh drainage drainage tile out there. So um that I I really think that that is you know again kind of kind of trying to meet in the middle there. Um so just wanted to highlight a few of those things. happy to answer any questions, but um I hope hope that we can uh you find some common ground here and that's what this is all about. So, thank you all.

Thank you, Will.

Could you please share with us a little bit more about the pump station because I know that we have received letters from residents who are concerned about the capacity and I I saw a blurb saying

that you covered it with them, but I just wanted to hear from you.

Yeah, no problem.

What those concerns are and and how

Sure. So, the pump station was was put into place with the Lakehouse area subdivision. Um, and per my kind of meetings and emails with Jonathan Jacobs, who's the utilities director, um, now he he has assured me and and looked at the data and everything,

there's no issue with this amount of the the four lots that were proposed before was no issue um, at all. And it has to do with the peaking factor of the pump station design um being able to allow more capacity. So you they can't say exactly how much capacity there is, but he he assured me there is plenty of sufficient capacity for this as proposed and uh into the future have no issues as far as maintenance goes. So yep. Thank you.

No problem. Thank you, Will. At this point, we will uh open public comment for this

reszoning. Anybody else want to sign up? Okay, this is uh Christina Mclliston.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

Um in front of you, you guys probably all have pamphlets so you can read along as I do my three minute spill. You've got pictures in there if you're more visual. And then you have a summary list of our conditions, but also like the extended conditions that we're just hoping can have ears to fall on. So, good afternoon. My name is Christina Mallister. I live adjacent to the proposed resoning application to 6 CZ01 Castleberry Road. I would like my comments tonight to be understood as a request for your help in protecting our home and our farm through meaningful conditions included as part of this resoning. I previously emailed a list of requested conditions for your consideration. I also want to be clear that we continue to support this land remaining rural residential, excuse me, at approximately one house per two acres. As adjacent property owner, I want to share what we have at 8901 Castlebury Road. It is more than a

residence. It is an active farm, agurism property, and educational space that has served Apex and Wake County families for more than 12 years. We invite the public onto our land for farm tours, youth camps, agricultural education, horse experiences, volunteer opportunities, and hands-on learning about animals and local food systems. Because of that special use, we're asking for the conditions that maintain a true rural edge between our property and future homes. We are requesting requesting, excuse me, larger buffers at a minimum of 100 ft along with a stronger type A buffer, double rows of evergreen trees, privacy fencing, and building orientation that places garages, driveways, lighting, and outdoor activity away from the rural property such as our pastures and bedroom windows. We're also concerned about additional traffic and safety for our guests and animals regarding the um potential future construction v uh vehicles and future neighborhood traffic using our private circular driveway. For that reason, we have requested the developer participation in entrance and exit gates for our property. Most importantly, we asked that future homeowners be informed through record deed notices that are moving next to an active agriculture education farm operation that includes livestock, animals, sounds, smells, farm equipment, and youth programming that these activities should not be considered a nuisance. A huge concern for us is not only the impact construction will have on our daily lives, but also the true effect it will have on our horses and other animals and the farm business that we have worked so hard to build. My request is simple. Please leave the zoning as rural residential because that is what fits this area best. However, if the zoning moves forward, I respectfully ask that meaningful conditions be incorporated to maintain the rural character of this area, protect adjacent agricultural uses, and preserve what makes this part of a Apex special. I also respectfully ask planning staff, board, town council to help guide me through the condition process uh and how residential protection conditions can be incorporated before any potential resoning approval. I'm trying my best to

understand, navigate the process, and I hope you can appreciate the effort I've put into learning, participating, and advocating for a home, farm, and community. I'm not a developer who works on these processes every month. So, I really truly appreciate your patience, guidance, and willingness to help and uh reading all the emails we send. Thank you very much for your time and consideration.

Thank you, Christina.

Thank you.

All right. So, do you live is your property the one directly to the left?

We are. We're we're on the eastern side.

Okay. So, in between this and Sleepy Valley. Is that correct?

Correct.

Okay.

Okay. Any other questions?

Um, if anybody had questions earlier about how I think Christy may have asked about how the traffic mitigation may happen. Our house is right there on the corner. If you flip to page two or three, there's a picture of like the entrance. I tried to, it's kind of hard to see, but there's red arrows that kind of show um and kind of circled some trees that would get cut down for right of way and the 5-ft sidewalk. Those are basically our buffer trees for the other development that was built. But you might be able to see the two entrances that we have. So, as we enter and exit, um we basically would be stopping to the ongoing traffic in and out of this proposed development. And it's very easy when um residents or guests come to visit the property, uh they're trying to go down Sleepy Valley for another event and oftentimes we get cars coming through. The issue that we have with cars coming through is we often have young children, youth riding horses. Um, so if you're coming in at like a quick speed of 10, 15, 20 miles per hour in our circular drive and a kid's on a horse, woo, you know, granted we've got really great horses, you know, trail horses, all that, but it's not safe. Um, oftentimes our goats are out or pigs are out and the kids get to run around and play with them. And so if a car is coming in at a fast pace, most

people aren't expecting 10 kids playing in the driveway, but that's what we have. We have nature hammocks. You're supposed to be outside. That's what we encourage. So, the likelihood of a car coming through not knowing what they're driving into is a real uh safety concern.

Any questions? I'd be I'm happy to answer anything.

Yep.

Thank you, Christina.

Thank you for your time.

All right. We don't have anyone else signed up for this resoning. So, hearing that, I will close public comment and bring it back to the board for discussion. Well, I'll start off a little bit. Um, will was there any discussion to address the light pollution and arrangement of the garages and whatnot?

Yes. I mean at this time you from a reasonzoning standpoint we we can generally talk about you know where the lots are going to be and the general orientation you know driveways coming out to Cal Road. So, um, you know, the first lot that's that would be closest to that eastern property line, um, there was a request to mandate that the garage be put on the, um, western side. And at this point in a reasonzoning case, we didn't feel comfortable doing that. kind of a couple of reasons, but the main source of that being that the lot does have a general grade from east to west and generally speaking, housing orientation and and where that the the driveway normally sits on the high side of the road for drainage purposes and other factors that relate to that. Um, you know, there there's a 40ft type B buffer as well as a 10-ft now, uh, or not 10 foot, but a row of evergreen trees at a type A buffer standard. So,

it that's sort of our mitigation that that I would kind of lend towards as as kind of protecting that. Um, this isn't going to be a large development scale neighborhood. It's it's three houses that front on the road. So any any light structure would more than likely just be any housemounted stuff. Um so you know I've relayed that to to the owners uh the two families and and I feel like at this point from a reasoning standpoint that's kind of where we're at. But um yeah that's kind of where I'm at as far as that that topic goes. I have a couple thoughts if I could

open it up and love your input as well. Um, so I'm pretty familiar with this area. Um, it used to be um the Acres Flower Farm and they had a program where we could walk over there. Well, you can't really drive there because it's um it's a very I want to say idllic buolic picturesque road and it's got a very old apex charm to it and you see horses trot on Castleberry Road, the main road. Um to my knowledge, there's a couple of farms there, not just yours, right? Um there's a clover farm, the vineyard, and then there's a big farm um where the great p is it Pyrenees dogs, they roam on the street. So um until recently that this Castleberry Road got painted. So, um this Sleepy Valley, the whole community, um it's got its own charm where, um kind of you want to it's like I want to keep it, you know, that way. That piece of

old apex and I feel like yes, Lake Castleberry is a big HOA community that's adjacent to it, but it's separate. It's totally separate. It's a cookie cutter community and Sleepy Valley is like Old Apex. So, um I understand staff denied recommended to deny the past one and um that was that had four houses on it and this one um the proposal is three houses on the parcel lot. So, not maximum three. Okay. And also um the past meeting minutes um one of the um denial reasons was it didn't really fit and it wasn't consistent with the land use map. So, um I I am leaning towards voting no to this because just just to keep that charm and I feel like um my concern there's a disturbance concern with all the farm animals there, not just yours but all the other multiple farms. Um but have you have you driven over there?

Have you walked over? Yeah. So, yeah. Those are my comments, my thoughts.

Thank you. Thank you, Sarah. Anyone else?

I am supportive of farms in Apex because they are disappearing and this is a teaching and learning farm. like we are teaching our young children who hopefully someday will be a science major or horiculturist or you know like this is like where they need to be. We have this right this community. I mean you're you're a high school student you know like this is a resource right here in Apex. I I'm so sad that we're even

considering doing away like doing anything that might somehow negatively affect that. And I just I feel like we got to keep what we can in terms of helping our youth. This is our community and yes, it's separate, but there will be some negative ramifications that are associated if we're building right there. And I I'm just sad about that. Let me know, did you have something you want to say?

Yeah, I actually live in Lake Hasselbury. So, I live on Great Vinham Drive and my one of my favorite things is to like walk around and I see the other I'm not really sure what it's called, but the other farm that's like adjacent to it and it's like really beautiful and there's so like the gra the vineyard and the grapes are so beautiful and the horses are amazing as well. So, I would really like to keep that as well.

Thank you. To be clear, this isn't a proposal to get rid of any farm.

Correct.

Correct. It is like that.

No, I mean just in general in general, you know, I I living off of South Salem Street, we've seen farmland turn into housing development. So, very familiar with that. Um, as a other thought, do is there any consideration that the proposed road improvements along Castleberry would actually be a benefit in potentially deferring traffic from turning around on Sleepy Valley and support any kind of aggraourism traffic that's headed that way? Just a thought.

So, Castleberry Road, it it the asphalt just stops,

right?

And it just the gravel starts and that's where um Sleepy Valley community begins. And I don't know how many houses there are in that, but it's like a whole wooded area towards the back, right?

More than a dozen homes to my knowledge. Someone could confirm that. Um, so I'm not sure if it'll benefit just extending a couple feet for that, you know, roundabout because gravel will start again, you know, unless they

but culdeac.

Yeah, I think the proposal is a culde-sac

and extend a sidewall,

right?

But the impact is also the widening too and that's going to take away from the character of the area. It's got to be considered as well. I mean, I think the reason that we denied it last time was because it wasn't keeping in with rural residential and obviously we're requesting they're requesting a reszoning of that, but there are so few places that are this way and it does appear to be a special community and I feel like we were touched by that last time when we had so many people that came up and just spoke so passionately about this area and this if this is something that we could preserve without having an impact right next to that. And I know it's fewer houses and you said up to three, right? Not up to three. Yeah. But

no, I get that. Part of me is like, well, other people want to enjoy that too,

right? They want to be part of the community. Um, so I get it.

So I have a question. I remember someone saying something about the watershed on that lot being close vicinity to Jordan Lake. Does anyone have any knowledge?

Yeah, that was discussed at the last time this came up in December and it was a concern, but I don't have my notes from that one. But

um that was addressed.

Do you remember it?

Yeah, that'd be great because I can't remember exactly what was said.

Sure. So the the core land is roughly about over it's more than 900 ft south of the the southern property line. Um I believe I believe that's about right. But um so that's that's kind of where we um you from a a buffer standpoint and um kind of other developments that have been approved on Calary Road. we had that like 450 foot buffer that was mainly requested and or we're beyond that um length and so that's why there was nothing really additionally considered um beyond that it I mean it is in the uh watershed protected of of Wake County as far as the zoning currently um there isn't there isn't a stream on site there isn't anything that I mean it it just directly flows to the northwest actually another area of that um Army Corps land that kind of extends up that direction. But um yeah, generally speaking though, it's it's not in that area or or as close in that proximity where some of those other types of conditions that you've seen in the past would come into play. Um

as far as I know. So

I have a question. If you were hypothetically you went from three down to two, are you still going to do the coldest sack and the paving? No, there's two there's two lots of record currently. So,

you would just leave it alone because my question is

they would probably build two houses.

Everybody's upset about the one more house. Or is it really all the things that are coming of the house? That's what I'm I'm trying to understand because it seems silly to say no to three versus two if he was still going to come out and do all the paving and get rid of all the things. But if what the request is is to try to keep it looking more like it is now and that would be if it was still two versus three. That's what I was trying to understand.

So take it to

one unit.

It makes no sense to me if if if there's

still going to be the paving and all the things done to go down one unit because that just seems silly. That's

it seems like most of the things, right? But if it was going to stay gravel, then I kind of see the point. Guess is where I'm at. So with this being a reasonzoning case for the town of Apex and being it would be annexed into the town of Apex, we have to have road frontage that brings us to our site here. Um and that has to be up to a minimum standard, which is been a condition that we've worked through. Um so it's it's as minimal as it could possibly be for a public road. The the ride ofway is already public. C Road is already public right away. it's never been accepted for maintenance because the infrastructure was never put in. Um, and so that's what's brought us here today is if it's going to be a reszoning in the town of Apex, which we hope, and it would be annexed into into the town of Apex with Apex sewer and water directly adjacent to us, we have to have that public road and it's to the minimum standard based on the rural residential context. So that's that's what we're stuck with. I mean um you know and the trees Russell's here to if you want to ask him but as far as the public rideway goes that Apex would not allow trees to be within their public rideway once they accept it for maintenance. So um that's kind of the the boundary that we're we're working within here. Um so um trying to think

infrastructure sorry if you mentioned infrastructure does that including does that include street lighting as well because right now currently Castleberry Road it doesn't have any street light

uh that would be a town of apex um decision as far as if if you would implement street lighting in that context in the in their street section Does Wimberly even have street lights?

I don't think it does.

I know it's NC NC DOT, but even Castleberry Road is NC DOT, isn't it?

State roads anyway

up to that point. Correct. Sure. This would be

So, kind of to just follow back up on what you were alluding to, there's two lots of record there. So, there would really be no use in going through with a resoning and annexation.

Stay in wake. It would not be part of Apex or what

probably, but there would I would I would assume there would still be home construction. And if that was happening, we we wouldn't have a say in what the road was or was not. That would be out of wouldn't be annexed in.

Are there currently existing houses on the other lot or?

No, the the the existing structure is only on the lot to the north. It was one owner with two lots of record. Yeah. So yeah, the only the only habitable structure is on the larger two acre piece. The one acre piece is um is somewhat cleared. Um but yeah,

and that's the southern portion of the

Yes, ma'am.

As far as because I remember you said about elevation change. How significant is that change? And so I'm trying to figure out how developable that site is or if a lot of dirt has to come in or like you know grading or

sure that this would this would not be like a massgraded you know these houses would be on um you know crawl space foundations and would work with kind of what was there. Um so that that's kind of another thing that from a reasonzoning standpoint it's kind of tough to portray but um yeah we it wouldn't be clear-cuted and masqueraded by any means. So just based on the

nature of it

from a from a standpoint if you stayed within the county will the souls perk where you can do accessory structures or no?

Not sure. I haven't have not explored that because we you know there there was an existing septic system. So to some degree I could say yes to but to what limitations that kind of brings in I'm not really sure. So as far as bedroom capacities and whatnot. Um but with the pump station being directly across the street our hope was that that would never be an issue. But that's obviously a decision that is yet to be made. Yeah,

but could I ask a question?

Uh, public speaking is closed at the moment.

Excuse me.

A public speaking has been closed.

I apologize. Any questions for Will?

Any more questions for Will? Okay. Board. So these

so we're difference between two and three lots

the conditions that are listed that you know the conditions that are all listed in here. I mean obviously it's been said that it would be preferred to keep it rural residential but I think this was really smart to write this down so there's kind of some accountability to go along with it. I um am going to vote against this, but if you all are voting for it, there's a lot. There's 18. So that I think that those need to really be considered. So because that's kind of what the conversation has been and there's been the the the neighborhood meetings and such, but and I know Will had said, you know, can't really say

where the lighting's going to be, right? or like where the but some of these things are important for moving forward with this if we're trying to keep the idea of rural residential even if we're moving to rural transitional residential and to try to maintain some semblance of that. So, I feel like if these are the neighbors conditions or have these been agreed upon by the developer, I really think that's important for you all to note. If you're saying, I say yes to this, but with the conditions, is it all of these conditions? Is it some of them? How are you guys going to go about that? Again, I I'm not voting for it. So,

dope. Anyone else like to speak? comments.

think what I'm struggling with is respect for the property owner who owns the home, the land now. Um trying to understand what it was that this town wanted to maintain like that rule character and stuff and respect for the existing homeowners too. And that's the part that is hard for me. Um, we don't like a town telling land owners what to do with their land. Generally speaking, um, I like to respect people who come forward without um, telling people they can't come in. And so that's part of what I'm trying to understand is did the town leave this like that because they wanted was the intent that that they wanted that to always remained gravel. And so when you're saying, "Oh, well, we get to complete the road to the end over to the lift station." Was that not important to the town, right? Like did that was that not considered? So that's those are the things that are in my head as I'm going through. And I think some of these are probably reasonable, some of them maybe not so much. I think some of them are um reasonable. Um if if they were to go

through with it, I think that anything to do with noise, lights, for example, I think that there is a way to mitigate that. No. Um, so I think there there might be a good compromise here. I'm just struggling to that was my thoughts. If I'm not mistaken, I believe it was um they were jumping up from 5 acre lots to low density which is allow three acres a lot. Is that was the last case in December? Is that is that right?

I believe

I believe that was the probably one3.

Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Then they come back. This time we're just one step up. But kind of the same argument.

So that seems like not the issue really. It doesn't seem like it's the number. It seems like how it's treating everything around it.

Yeah.

And that's where I'm at. It's like I don't think it's the big deal to go from four to three or three to two. It sounds like the issue is all the other things and that's what seems what matters to everybody. I don't think I helped anything there, but I'm just saying this. Sorry.

Any more discussion?

I guess I'll jump in just a little bit. Um I'm a little bit torn as well. Um but I plan on voting no. Um in part whether it's right, wrong, or indifferent. Um, I've got five horses, two cows in southeast and the thing that does terrify me is development comes around me. Um, I've done some inroads to protect myself from that. But I do understand and one of one of the biggest things I've got is the concern I've got about is the light is that that that to me is the biggest concern I've got is the light issue. Um,

but I would encourage the developer and the neighbors, you know, especially Miss Mallister and her family. I would encourage them to meet some more and have discussions about this. Um because Miss Mallister, the problem becomes somebody can come in right now and put a three-story building on your property line in Wake County. They can come 10 ft inside the property line and you have no protection over what might happen. Um diagonally across from me, I've got Amgen. So that's all I know. And so, you know, that that to me is the biggest thing is it it doesn't seem like there was enough consideration by the developers for the neighbors to address a fair amount of their concerns. Understood. And some being addressed to 20 to 40 foot. I think the neighbors were requesting 100 foot. They did move they and I believe they agreed on a fence and some evergreen trees. But um not exactly met in the middle yet.

Everybody's not agreeable. I shouldn't say met in the middle.

They're not agreeable.

They have made some efforts is what I'm saying, but the light I can see what you're saying. Like if there were just flood lights on the side, the house would be different from a

light sensor, right?

A pole light.

How does that affect the animals? And I think that's probably where the But he is right. Um y'all, you could be they leave it like it is and they can just come in and do it. So I think I think it would behoove both parties, right, to try to come together and say

how can we and a little bit more here and a little bit less there, right? And maybe y'all can get kind of get there and

I don't know what you do about I don't know what to say about the road. Um

because it sounds like that's that's Apex requirement. That's not

him wanting to do that. That's what we're saying. If you're going to come in, you got to do this. And so

and and the truth of the matter is the rightway is what the rightway is. So it's not,

you know, again, they they had a gas line come down and I'm getting ready to lose everything to east of me due due to a sewer line running. But that I've accepted and I've dealt with the town, you know, how I needed to do with it. So, um I just I'd like more communication between I'd like to see more of what I perceive as communication between the neighbors and the developers.

And I get it. I I I do. I understand. You probably feel like you have

and and it can be that the answer is like no, right? And they just the answer is just no. And if that's the answer is no, then you just need to understand that what he's saying can actually no matter what we do that can still impact you to the negative, right? Like ADU units, that's something that's important to the town, might be beneficial to the business. I don't know. I mean, I I could see that. So, um I I do think there probably needs to be a little bit of more give. I would like to see it just for everyone's sake. So for the existing homeowners who would like to do something with their land that's important to them and for the existing homeowners who have their land and their and their history there. I really want to see that the idea was

y going from two lots to three lots is not the worst thing that can happen as you as you desire but today we have to make a decision.

Yes we do that.

Yep. So um Any motions, discussion?

Well, hearing the silence, I'll go ahead and throw one out there. Uh, I make a motion to decline reasonzoning case 26 CZ01 8905 Caspbury Road. I could second that motion.

We have a first. We have a second.

Discussion.

All in favor say I.

I.

All that oppose.

I know.

I know.

Motion passes.

I think it was three. Were you in?

I was I was in no. I'm sorry. Yeah, I was in agreement with the I'm sorry. I was struggling to recommend a denial, raise your hand, please.

All right, motion passes.

Sure.

Excellent. Mhm.

Okay. With item with that, we will move on to item two, public hearing, possible motion regarding resing case.

Sorry.

Sorry. Just as we did the last time, we have to go through all of the legislative considerations.

Oh, great.

And state why we um why the board is recommending denial.

Okay.

Um so the first is consistency um with the land use map. I don't think it is.

Yeah, it's not consistent.

Yeah. Okay. Uh the next is compatibility. The zoning's appropriateness for its proposed location and compatibility with the character surrounding the main land uses.

No.

I mean, the town council likes to hear reasons. So, if you have a reason, you can mention it. If not,

it just seems weird because it was we just did this in December. we all agreed that that going from four, I just don't see how we're changing our mind going from four to three. And so I would I would enumerate the the character of the community and the fact that we put that overlay in in place um to keep it that way for a reason and it just doesn't seem enough of a reason to go against it that there's enough good. It seems like there's a little bit more on the negative side for the existing residents on compatibility and um I I wouldn't call it environmental effect but impact but those are the ones that I was looking at adverse impact sorry adverse impact number four that it does not well let's go through all of them. So number two is inconsistent with compatibility. Number three there are no supplemental standards for single families. So there's nothing to be inconsistent with,

right?

Um that's right. Not not applicable.

All right. Number four is design uh minimizes adverse impact avoidance of significant adverse impacts on surrounding lands regarding trash, traffic, service delivery, parking and loading, odors, noise, glare, and vibration and not create a nuisance.

I think Christie, didn't we have trouble with this last time?

We did because I'm You're saying it's hard for us to give a negative because of the way that it's phrased. And I think we had to discuss this last time.

If the use doesn't minimize adverse impacts,

if the zoning does not minimize the adverse impacts, then then this would be inconsistent.

This is inconsistent because I'm going with the the glare like the the lighting that they were talking about specifically is what I'm saying that what he's proposing does not minimize that

currently. Okay.

Uh number five is design minimize environmental impact. Um

whether it uh minimizes environmental impacts and protection from significant deterioration of water and air resources, wildlife habitat, scenic resources, and other natural resources.

I think it does minimize that that one. It does minimize that one. Yes,

I agree with that.

Okay. Number six is impact on public facilities. The zoning's avoidance of having adverse impacts on public facilities and services including roads, pedable water, and wastewater facilities, parks, schools, police, fire, and EMS facilities. This is your perspective, right? I mean, I would say that probably the current residents say that they like the road the way it is and that we're saying that we need it to that's that's where I'm kind of torn. I think we're supposed to represent the the resident's perspective on this. So, I would say that that has a negative impact on the road, right? If we're upgrading I know we're upgrading it, but

you see what I'm saying? But that's the whole part of the

Yes. Because we're taking it from gravel putting it putting in the culde-sac. So that would be a suggestion that maybe the improvements to the road might be if you look at number eight

improvements to the road may adversely impact

adjacent properties. Yes. Okay. I see what you're saying. So maybe

for number six, impact on public facilities. You would say that's consistent or inconsistent?

I would say it's consistent as it sits.

Okay. Number seven is health, safety, and welfare. The um proposal's effect on the health, safety, or welfare of the residents of the town or its ETJ. I think it

consistent

with with small lot small number of housing.

Okay. Number eight is detrimental to adjacent properties whether it's substantially detrimental to adjacent properties.

Yes, because of the road.

Yes, because of the animals.

Right.

I don't I'm an animal lover.

I just think they have a business and they they they're there first. I just feel like we just have to acknowledge that.

I think I think anybody coming in needs

to be respectful of that. Uh, so I think that that is detrimental to the property. I don't think I don't like this. I really really want to fight with this really hard. Sorry. I think that that design is detrimental to adjacent properties.

I agree.

I did graduate college. I swear does not look like it right now, but I swear I did.

We didn't have chat GPT.

Well, I'm just I don't Well, the way these are phrased I I these are based in state law. Okay. Number nine is not constitute nuisance or hazard. Whether the reasonzoning um constitutes a nuisance or hazard due to traffic impact or noise or because of the number of persons who will be using the use. So it does constitute a hazard. Therefore number nine is

yes compliant. The design does not constitute a nuisance or a hazard. I would disagree. I think it does.

It does impact.

Right. Is that how am I saying it right now?

Yes, you're saying it correctly

on the struggle bus.

Oh my god. Only one more.

Okay. All right. Okay. Um other relevant standards of the ordinance. The proposal complies with all standards imposed on it by other applicable provisions of the ordinance for use, layout, and general development characteristics. It did comply

also in and of itself. It is compliant.

It is compliant. The design is compliant with what we're asking. Yes. Good.

Okay. I would like to go on the record and state that I think the reason this is worded this way is to inhibit us from talking about it. I'm saying it kind of jokingly, but I'm not.

Sorry. Okay.

To bring levity to the situation. Thank you very much. with this vote with Alyssa and Pete.

Yes.

All right. Great.

Okay.

Now, we will move on, thank goodness, to item number two, uh, public hearing and possible motion regarding case 25 CZ Holland Road.

Good evening. Elise Bean, senior planner with the town of Apex. here to present reszoning case 25 CZ21 2728 Holland Road or the Teeter property. This property is located in the southwest portion of Apex's planning jurisdiction. Uh it's approximately 3/4 of a mile north of Old US Highway 1 on the west side of Holland Road. Um this property is in the ETJ and consists of approximately 10.35 acres. Uh the current zoning of the property is rural residential as seen here. The parcel immediately to the south known as the Hartley property um is also rural residential as are the single family residential parcels on the east side of Holland Road. Holland Farm and Bellacasa subdivisions to the north, west, and farther south are allzoned medium density residential. The applicant proposes to reszone the property to medium density residential conditional zoning. The 25 2045 future lands use map classifies this property as medium density residential and the proposed reszoning to medium density conditional zoning is generally consistent with this classification. The property to be reszoned is fully wooded with mature trees. a stream runs along the majority of the western uh border of the property and also from the northwestern corner down to the kind of middle of the southern boundary um of the property. Uh the neighborhood or the applicant conducted two neighborhood meetings on uh one on November 26th,

2025 and the other on March 4th, 2026. Both neighborhood meeting reports are attached in your packet. A letter of impact from Wake County Public Schools System was received for this resoning and is also included in your staff packet uh staff report packet. Uh Wake County Public Schools indicates that schools at the middle school grade level uh within the current assignment area for the proposed resoning are anticipated to have insufficient capacity for future students and transportation to schools outside the current assignment area should be anticipated. Uh Wake County Public Schools indicates that the school expan that school expansion or construction or reassignment within the next five years may address um these concerns at the middle grade middle school grade levels. I'd like to highlight a few of the proposed conditions um for this resoning. Um number one, the number of lots on this parcel would be limited to 13. Um due to the environmental constraints on this um this lot um in large part due to the stream and its buffers, uh they're limited in space. So um 13 lots on this area puts the proposed density at an average lot size of about 1.3 dwelling units per acre. um which is actually more comparable to a low density residential district as we've discussed. Um number two, um the applicant is proposing a minimum 65 foot lot width for all the residents that are not residences that are not on a culde-sac. Um this was asked um for in order to ensure compatibility with the development pattern directly to the north in Holland Farm. Number three, the um applicant is uh is offering 35% resource conservation area uh plus an additional 5% if it's mass graded. Um this exceeds what would be required in the UDO, which would be 30%.

Number 17, uh the applicant is offering two new street stubs to the parcel to the south, which is the Hartley property. Um, these street stubs were requested specifically by town staff to facilitate future connections to and through the Hartley property should that parcel develop in the future. Um, the intent is for one stub to be located on each side of the stream as it comes down. Sorry, let me go to this for you to see. um to prevent the need to cross the stream or impact those um existing ponds in the future with an additional crossing so that the the eastern portion of the H Heartley property could be developed with a connection of its own stub and also without creating an additional access point along Holland Road which is a major thoroughare. Number 20, a secondary access point would not be required at the time of buildout due to the an inability to add an access point to Holland Road. This condition goes handinand with the addition of street stops as offered in um condition 17. uh both the property subject to this resoning and the Hartley property to the south um face a restriction um in terms of uh distance between entrances to Holland. Um we have a curve right here and there's 850 ft between um the nearest entrances or the nearest um nearest full um movement accesses. Um, so and as you can see, the majority of the frontage um between those two accesses is with the Hartley property. So they wouldn't be able to um get an access far enough away from the existing one at Old Byer Way. Um so setting up a connection between the existing stub streets, one um to the

north on steeplechase bend and then in the future a connection to Ptorio Place here to the south coming out of Bellacasa um is considered the most appropriate opportunity to develop this property and potentially the Hartley property in the future. Um, of note, without this resoning, the owner of the subject property could choose to develop up to three homes under an exempt site plan, um, which would not require those street stub connections, um, and could erase the opportunity for that logical connection from subdivision to subdivision there. Um and also um Holland Farm, which currently does not have a secondary access, um would lose their opportunity to have this connection made in the relatively near future, um depending on what happens with the H Heartley property, um and and get their secondary access point, which would be in line with the current UDO. And then number 22 um off-site sidewalk was requested um and is offered um for this short piece here um along with what is um HOA owned property um for Holland Farm um just to make sure that any um sidewalk that is built along the frontage of the Teeter property is connected um into the sidewalk network within Holland Farm and you're not getting an awkward gap there. Uh the applicant is offered um $50,000 um to the town of Apex affordable housing fund. Um town housing staff uh while recognizing this effort um have indicated that they are not in support of this condition as offered as it is not consistent with the town's uh adopted affordable housing incentive zoning policy. Um the request in

accordance with that policy is for 10% of the total proposed dwelling units, in this case one single family home, um to be either provided as affordable housing um or that a sum of $218,000 be um provided as an inlue payment by the applicant. And the Apex Environmental Advisory Board, the EAB, held a meeting for this resoning on February 19th, 2026. Uh, four of the seven conditions recommended by the EAB were accepted or offered as an amendment by the applicant. The table of EAB recommended conditions is included in your packet. Planning staff recommends the approval of resoning 25 CZ 21 with the conditions as offered by the applicant. The 2045 land use map classifies the subject property as medium density residential. The proposed reszoning to medium density residential conditional zoning MDCZ is generally consistent with that land use uh classification. The proposed resoning is reasonable and in the public interest as the proposed density uses and architectural conditions are consistent with the adjacent developments to the northwest and south and requires more resource conservation area than required by the UDO. In addition, the proposed resoning provides more street connections to the south than would be required by the UDO to support future neighborhood connectivity without the addition of another public street connection on Holland Road, which is a major thoroughare. Finally, a condition is offered to extend and connect the pedestrian network to the north along the frontage of uh the Holland farmed subdivision. With that, I'm happy to answer any questions and the applicant is here to answer questions as well. Thank you, Elise, for that very informative presentation. Any questions for Elise?

Did we receive any communications from the Heartley family?

I'll let the applicant speak to that. I know they have reached out um about the the potential for acquiring that

property and potentially developing them together, but it's my understanding that that wasn't an option. So there's the potential that if the Heartland agree to it eventually somewhere down the line that's where we're getting those street stubs that will be but as of Okay.

Correct. Yeah.

How long would something like that take to develop? So you said like the board of ed is saying five years down the road that maybe there'll be enough middle school placement. What what are we looking at in terms of this being built for that? Well, I they would have to go through a similar property, similar process to this the Teeter property,

right? I guess I'm sorry, I meant the Teeter one. Like, how long

how long be this development? What's the time frame for that as opposed to freeing up or building a brand new school or whatever we're doing to reduce capacity to allow,

right? So in um so this will go through the the normal process of you know if if resoning is achieved then they'll go through the site you know development and review process.

Um

I don't know if they need to have a green light from Wake County Public Schools other than Yeah, I don't think they do. I was just wondering if they

is this an 18month process and is that typ like just what's the average or the range?

I don't know what the average timeline is. It's probably a bit longer than that from the time they submit subdivision plans, get through the construction drawings, put all the infrastructure in, and then start building homes. It's probably about two years, I would say.

Yeah.

Till home till like somebody bodies

start going vertical.

Thank you. So, okay. Thank you.

Thank you. That's what I

Thank you.

Yeah. And and and to reiterate, in order to get that full connection, um this the H Heartley property would have to go through the same process that, you know, there's a possibility that they could um you know, sell off just the the back half of their property, keep keep what they have here, and then um you know,

the second street stub as requested by staff would be on this side of the of um of the stream and then be able to come around and connect. Okay. So when planners approve as you know you gave recommendation for approval of this but with the affordable housing those you know that they would prefer the 218,000 in L or the one home that wasn't offered the $50,000 was offered since you went ahead with the recommendation of that what happens does the 50,000 still stand like I'm just curious like what happens with that does does the town of Apex then accept that 50,000. Do they push more for still wanting that one affordable housing home? Do they push for the 28 118,000? I just am curious.

Sure. Um, so planning staff, we make our recommendation based on kind of the set of criteria um that we've gone through and the and the process we go through with the together with the applicant. um if the uh affordable housing condition um you know they're offering a portion of that um they may hear from town council that they want to see that full amount and and really it comes to what council says.

I see. Okay. Thank you so much.

Any other questions for Elise?

Thank you Elise. Yeah. Thank you.

Applicant like to speak.

Uh good evening everyone and thank you Elise for the uh presentation. My name is Neil Go. I'm an attorney at the Morning Star Law Group and um also Rene God bless you for being here. I mean this this a long meeting so I appreciate your involvement. Um I represent the uh applicant here Art and Building uh and we have representative there Cory Schmidt. He actually lives really close to this site. Uh so he's very familiar

with the area. And uh I'm I also want to introduce Patrick Kieran who I know you all are very familiar with from Jones. He'll be presenting this. And I just wanted to say hello everyone. Thank you Patrick.

Good evening everyone. My name is Patrick Kieran, Jones Engineering, 221 North Salem Street. Um, and as Mr. Goch said, here representing Ardent Building um, for this resoning of 2728 Holland Road. Um, not to reiterate all the things that Elise presented. I think he did a great job um, going through everything. Um, obviously there's a few things that I anticipate being questions that I'll try to get ahead of a little bit. Um, starting with the affordability. Um, so I want to talk a little bit about the compatibility with the surrounding area. Um, Neil mentioned that the developer is he's nearby. He's actually a resident of Holland Farm. Um, which is kind of unique where the developer is also one of the neighbors. Um, the home sizes in Han Farm are what they are. They're, you know, it's a medium density zoning, but they're not minimum sized. they're very consistent with the Bellacasa home sizes. Um, with that said, we were very thoughtful in our laying out of the subdivision to make sure that the home sizes would match uh the the surrounding areas and it's not just to the south, it's to the west as well. Um, Holland Farm currently has 81 lots in their subdivision utilizing one access point. Um, now I know the town's UDO speaks to a max of 50 lots on one access point. Holland Farm was um built before that UDO was established. My understanding is that the town's ordinance is based on interconnectivity rather than fire safety. So from a fire safety standpoint, we meet the fire code which has a max of 100 units on a single um access point. With that said, if you

were to go from 81 to 100, technically you could get I'm not sure if it's at 100 or 99, but you could get 18 or 19 homes and still meet all these same, you know, parameters that we're in. That would result in smaller lots that don't fit the character of the surroundings. It would be very easy for my client to agree to one affordable unit or even two if you were to do 19. if it was 10% of 19. Um, by increasing the density and adding more units, he could inevitably make more money that way. Um, this is not a development to max out profit. This is about responsible growth. Um, as Elise mentioned, this resoning has no control over what the property owner could end up doing if, you know, resoning was was not approved. Um, I think that the interconnectivity aspect of the ordinance would be completely um, cut of the knees if somebody were to go in there and do an exempt subdivision. Um, eliminating, you know, any future extension of those street stubs to connect Holland Farm to Bellacasa. Um, which by the way, if and when that ever does happen, would mean that there is a secondary access point as Elise mentioned from Holland Farm to, you know, essentially in the future meet the current ordinance even though it was built before the UDA was established. Um, so that's sort of our angle on the affordability. The performer for this project is is low to begin with because of the intent of doing this the right way. Um, at our first neighborhood meeting, um, there was a lot of neighborhood neighbor opposition to the fact that we were connecting to their road network. Um, we were very adamant, um, or we were very cognizant of that concern. Um, my client, again, being a resident in that neighborhood is very familiar with the board and with most of the neighborhood. He held a voluntary neighborhood meeting outside of the typical review process. Um, and there

was a lot of back and forth and negotiating on how to make them comfortable with our proposal. Um, and at the second neighborhood meeting, there was no opposition. So, we obviously I can't speak for them. U, but I feel like we've done what we needed to do to gain their support and ultimately they're the ones that would be affected the most by this resoning. Um, let me see what else. the environmental advisory board. Um, as Elise mentioned, um, when we met here, they recommended seven additional conditions. We actually came to the table with eight of theirs kind of preloaded and they, you know, um, offered seven additional ones. We were able to give on four of those. Um, those three that we were not, I feel very justified in our reasoning. I'm happy to explain those way if need be. Um but in in total, you know, the way I kind of look at it, we we provided 12 out of 15 of the environmental conditions. Um so all in all, I mean, I I think from a what is the correct zoning of this parcel? Um I think it's hard to argue that medium density is the correct zoning. Surrounding uh properties being what they are, our our density, like Alise said, equates more to a low density. is actually on the lower end of a low density. So from a impact to the surroundings, it's it's about as minimal as it could be while still meeting the intent of the land use map, still meeting all the environmental concerns. Um, one of which being uh committing to 35% RCA if uh stage graded and then 40% RCA if mass graded. So, you know, we're increasing on storm water control. We're increasing our RCA um you know all the HOA covenants about not restricting clover lawns or dormant leaf piles and those sort of things you know we're happy to um you know oblige on those. Um so happy to answer any questions you might have. I really feel strongly about

this. Um, I know there's a couple things in there that might from the surface look, you know, negative, but I think again when you really dig into the resoning for what it is and the cards that we were dealt, this is by far the best thing that could could happen with this property. So, thank you.

Thank you, Patrick. Any questions for the applicant? just want to thank your client for um going the extra step to speak to the residents, the neighbors, and uh get their have their voices heard. I really appreciate that.

Thank you.

Can you can you speak to the either conversation or lack of conversation to the Heartley property?

Oh, yeah. There was um multiple conversations. Uh so when we actually when we had our preapp meeting the town um and you can jump in if you'd like to but you know mentioned the 50 lot ordinance and what could we do? Um one of the things that we did one of the actual things we did was at the original pre-app meeting the layout looked a little bit different and it did include one stream crossing on our site as well as setting up the street stub to the south for likely another stream crossing. So that was kind of part A was what can we do with the layout to at least avoid future environmental concerns. And then the second two options that were provided to us were buy the Hartley property, buy half the prop the Hartley property, whatever you need to. Um Mr. Schmidt made multiple attempts to um speak with the Heartley, spoke with him a couple times in person a couple times. They waffled a little bit on the possibility. Uh he even went so far as to, you know, offer a phased sort of development that would include allowing us to connect the street stubs, letting him stay in his house, you know, their house for as long as they need to, potentially even designing a lot in a ranch style home for them, you know, in the phase two of this neighborhood. Um that seemed to get their attention a little bit. Ultimately, their decision

was not to sell.

Um can't

they're not ready.

Yeah. Can't can't force them. decision.

Any other questions for the applicant?

Thank you, Patrick.

Thank you.

With that, we will do we have anyone to speak for open for public comment? Okay, hearing none. We'll close in comment, public comment. We'll bring it back to the board for discussion.

Now we're later. I mean, I would just make a comment that we are looking at reszonings for some of the most challenging pieces of land in recent months. I'd see Jeff Roach nodding his head in the back

and I think this is just an indication of where we are as a town with, you know, approaching these little infill sites um in already developed areas. And it looks consistent and I'm in favor of this, but gosh, what a dog of a sight. It's just it's tough.

I don't have to agree. Um uh really appreciative of of how the the applicant has worked with the neighbors and um with the 13 lots with the 1.3 units per acre, you know, that is I mean that's that's equal low density. Uh hard to argue. I you know I I did have a hang up you know at first with with the affordable housing but in discussing with the with Bellaccasta and um and and and the Holland property to the north I do believe to keeping the neighbors and keeping it consistent and the street connections is also extremely

important and something to consider and ultimately they will be the ones that have to live with it uh will be the neighbors. Any other comments?

Looking at this diagram, I kind of wished there was more connectivity between um Holland Farm and the manners to the west, but uh I understand all the um the RCA area, you know, that's challenging. Um and you spoke about um

Oh, okay. Yeah, sorry. Perennial stream to the west with a FEMA flood plane as well. So, I think there's a FEMA plane.

Um, believe there was, but there would be multiple

probably stream crossings that they would have had to make. So, they were

I think valid reasons that that wasn't made and I think that continues further south as well between the phase uh actually there may be a connection a little bit further south, but um I didn't look that far. So anyway, that's that's the reason is that that perennial stream.

But on the other hand, I'm I'm kind of thankful you're not really touching that area, you know. Um environmental

reasons why. Gosh, this one's a heart, too. I still I think I'm still stuck on the first one.

Does Mr. Hartley have any livestock? Well, and and frankly, I would I think it's important that if if the residents and neighbors have concerns that they they share. They can do it through email. They can show up. And I I just feel like if they have it, then then that is the voice that they you know, they definitely know what's happening.

I mean, if we continue on with the we represent them,

but

Patrick's told us that all of the concerns were disappeared with the second one. I feel like those were addressed. So, I mean, That

sounds like that makes sense. I mean, we

already voted on the other side of the street last time. I mean, it is a developed area. This is what Holland is turning into, you know. So,

yes.

Yeah.

I hear a motion.

I make a motion to approve.

Second.

We have a motion and a second. Discussion. All the approved say I. I. All the post. Motion carries.

Okay. Now we'll move to item three, June. Again,

public hearing possible motion regarding resulting case 25 ZZ223100 Olive Chapel Road.

Okay, this project is located in the western um portion of town. It's on the northeast corner of Transit Trail and Olive Chapel Road. Uh this project site is 4.58 acres and includes there's a single family home right here. Um mature trees and then there's a little stream that's coming across this corner. Um the site includes a driveway on Olive Chapel Road and one on Transit Trail. And then uh the site includes an existing there's existing sidewalk curb and gutter is located on the east side of transit trail. And then there's a utility easement um along the eastern side of the property. And so, um, looking at the surrounding area, there's single family homes. That's rural residential conditional zoning to the north. Um, a little subdivision. And then along here on the the uh eastern side and south is open space. Um, that is the North Carolina Wild Life Resources open space area. And then to the west, um, this is a vacant piece of property with the with mature

trees on it. The existing zoning district is Wake County residential ADW and a portion, you could just see a little bit of um, rural residential conditional zoning. The proposed is um, office and institutional conditional zoning. And then rural residential conditional zoning. The um current land use classification is rural density residential and then that little portion is rural transition residential. If reszone is proposed, a 2045 land use map would um be changed to office employment um and a portion of the rural transition residential classification. So the proposed zoning districts looking at this um they have rural residential conditional zoning. The uses for this section, the single family dwelling, um, accessory apartment, utility, minor, park, passive, active, and a greenway. And then the zoning conditions for this portion. Um, they would only apply to any new construction residential. So, the existing home shall be exempt from those following conditions. and they just have some design as far as built upon area maximum height and then the building setbacks which is on page four of your staff report. All home shall include solar conduit and then all garages shall be wired that 220 volt. Um and then there's six architectural conditions for this um area dealing with you know garage have a window and detail and front porch with a six foot depth

for the office and institutional conditional zoning right along here. Um the permitted uses be office and um government services limited retail uses. Those are also on page four of your staff report. And then the following uses shall be limited to the operation hours of 7:00 a.m. to 900 p.m. That's restaurant, new standard, gift shop, pharmacy, personal service, barber and beauty shop. And then the percentages for some of the retail that's means that only a certain amount um would be allowed. And then we also have um this is for government services use. So these additional conditions. So on here's a 10- foot um type B buffer along all of Chapel Road and 20 foot type A, 10 foot type A. And then this little star, they um are proposing, you can see right here, a privacy fence coming down here to protect that existing residential home. And um only emergency service vehicles shall be allowed direct ingress and egress driveway onto all Chapel Road and then the full access driveway shall be required on the transit trail. RCA dedication shall be 20% of the zone B growth site area. And then we have another set of conditions and that's for the non-residential uses other than government services. So, we were talking about the the restaurant. There's limited uh retail and office 20 foot type E along all of Chapel Road. 20 foot type um B and then along the um northern section would be 20 foot type B. There shall be a limit of one access point onto all of Chapel Road and that point of access shall be a ride in ride out access at least 250 ft east of transit

trail and all of Chapel Road intersection and then the full access um point would be on transit trail RCA dedication shall be 25% um of zone B growth site area and then this transportation condition would be for um all uses construct roadway frontage widening on Olive Chapel Road based on rural thoroughfare typical section that's a 12T travel lanes 6 foot um pave shoulders and then provide a 5-ft sidewalk for the extent of the project um frontage east of transit trail that a variable road frontage widening in addition to the tical section for lane transitions going from three lane to two lane crosssection east of Transit Trail. And that would allow for future addition of a eastbound left turn lane um by others on Olive Chapel Road and Transit Trail. And then due to the small area, the project was exempt from the environmental advisory board and housing staff did not recommend affordable housing condition. Um, planning staff recommends approval of 25 CZ22 as proposed by the applicant. The 2045 land use map designates the properties of rural density residential and rural transition residential. The applicant proposes a resoning to office institutional conditional zoning and rural residential conditional zoning with limited uses and conditions. If the properties are reszoned as proposed, the 2045 land use map will automatically be amended to office employment and rural transition residential classification. And then the proposed resoning is reasonable in the public interest and that it would provide office government service and limited retail uses to serve

the existing and proposed residential development in the area. And the resoning will also allow for that existing single family home to remain on the lot lot that is generally consistent with those to the north. The proposed resoning will provide roadway frontage widening with a sidewalk along all of Chapel Road. And furthermore, the proposed resoning includes stricter and architectural conditions than the UDO um requires. And with that, if you have any questions and the applicant is here as well.

I have a question. When you said that if it's approved that the 2045 plan gets updated, does that just affect this parcel or is that something that will affect the other parcels around? I was just I just was curious.

Just this parcel, but it is taking a a a little section right here of of this parcel. So this little section would change to office and institutional and then basically they're just going to be doing a recombination and then include this um in the zone area A. So it's real residential conditional zoning um just the same as to the north. June, can you go back to show us please the map so we can see how close this is to the American Tobacco Trail?

Oh, all the way.

Just go back to the aerial.

Oh,

okay. So, that's it,

right?

Okay. And then of course this is open space, federal land,

right? It's just kind of crazy, isn't it guys, that all chapel is no longer going to be residential, that there's going to be buildings out. I mean, this is that

it there's the potential for a restaurant like that's you asked me 10 years ago, I would have never seen Sweet Water coming. Look at it now. True.

Yeah, that's true. This is you. Will are you gonna Okay. Um, is there Well, come come on up. Sorry, J. I don't want to.

Any other questions?

Nope.

Thank you, J.

Hello again. Um, so thanks June. Appreciate all the all the work that you've done with this. Um, another kind of unique one, but um, Will Norton Jones Canos Engineering um, here on behalf of Joey Ione JBI Building and Development, who's the property owner um, his daughter is actually the uh, and and her husband is the owner of the residential property to the north. Um, so you just to kind of talk about where this is and how this kind of came about. Um, the the fire department here in Apex has been looking for a new site um, out in this area and uh, Olive Chapel Road and Transit Trail. Um, Transit Trail is a collector street on the transportation map will eventually connect from Olive Chapel all the way through to 64. Um this this road was built uh to to provide access to the um neighborhood to the north and will be continued on here in the next little bit um with further development to the north. So um once that is complete it it becomes another access from all chapel up to 64. And so this site was kind of picked out um generally speaking by Steve Adams with town real estate staff and fire chief has you know kind of their best spot that they could choose in this area to provide service out

here. Um and and so with that that's the um the resoning case has been brought forth with that idea in mind. um that government services use fits in the ONICZ um you know zoning standards and and so that's the target um development there. There's nothing under contract quite yet, but I think they're working towards that. Um last I've heard last week is they're they're working towards that as well. So, this kind of unique that the existing home would be able to remain where it is and the current resident is um able to stay there and per their desire that's it fits um what they want and they've um been able to work work with that. So, this gives the town roughly over three acres to work with for their fire station site. Um and so they've kind of looked at that from engineering standpoint. Um Jim kind of laid laid out the land for you, but um just kind of this corner um provides them, you know, their kind of ideal situation for for in this area. Um and so that's been the intent. The the other OICZ uses are, you know, if something falls through this, as crazy as it may seem, is it's probably going to be a pretty busy corner with that corridor um of Transit Trail and all Chapel being more well traveled. Um, so this kind of lends to that type of development as well. Um, obviously the the desire of this would be to be government services for the new fire station and for all intents and purposes that the fire chief has said we're going to make this work. So, um, that's kind of where we've landed here. Um, and yeah, happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Quick question. Would this be just a fire department? It will be like a combo that they've done in other spots with police, ambulance, just fire here.

I believe it. I believe it's just fire. There hasn't been any other further discussion. Kind of like the Apex Barbecue, Kelly Road. Um you know, this

kind of lays out almost similarly, just kind of mirrored if you if you imagine um that fire station that passenger cars enter off of Kelly Road to a parking lot area and then fire has direct access on Tapeex Barbecue. So if you imagine that kind of mirrored fire would have access directly on a chapel passenger cars and those coming back in would enter off a transit trail. Um and so traffic flow kind of works a little little bit similarly if you can kind of envision that. But um to my knowledge the the fire station would be the only government service use to my knowledge currently.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Will the fire station I mean this might be too far ahead face um Olive Chapel or Transit Trail? I believe the intent would be generally speaking the front the garages and the bays would enter or would would have egress out to Odd Chapel Road.

So all those lights in front will

they'll go on to Odd Chapel. Yeah. Is is would be their path of egress.

So the homeowners sold this this was their property. The homeowners behind them or not?

Joey's owned it for a while. Yeah. JVI has owned it. Um I'm not sure if it's in Joey's or JBI's building and development, but um Joey purchased all this from the family out there. Um the Clemens and Western Reserve was um done a few years back and um a couple of the parcels along Transit Trail were also developed there um for for residential. So, but he's owned it ever since that acquisition. Any other questions for Will? Thank you. Bring it back to the board for discussion.

I get it more as a fire station than I did as a restaurant. I can wrap my head around that way better because that just makes sense. I mean, in thinking about where the other fire stations are, the

combo on Olive Chapel or um Kelly and Apex Barbecue, then you've got the one all the way down Noodle, right? And then you got the one all the way down Hunter. I mean, it seems like that it's probably necessary. Obviously, the fire chief knows what they're doing in terms of knowing what's needed to cover, as will said, all of those Weston and whatever's up there. And it's going to go all the way through, right? you said would up to 64.

Yes. Which would come out with that 400 unit apartment complex that's been approved

which would go right through there.

I'm really thankful for the neighbor supportive this fire station.

Well, that's the thing is the only neighbors that are there is the guy that's doing the development.

Yeah. Joe and his family live out there.

And and then the three there's three houses up north to the north of it.

Yeah.

Joe's daughter lives right behind where the fire station is going.

And then that my opinion is the neighbors that are going to be impacted are the ones that are

the they're the ones that are developing property. Yeah. Yeah.

Um and unlike I remember when the Kelly Road Fire Station went in, the concern was from the neighbors behind them about the noise

and whatnot for I'm not going to say for once, but in this case, we're getting ahead of the eightball because anybody that moves out there or develops the property later on, this is an existing circumstance.

Exactly. Um, so it's a great it's a great location. Um, because to the I guess east of it where the federal land is, that's never going to be developed. The property across the street is never going to be developed because it's federal land. So, you know, from a noise and light issue,

you're you're harming the fish that are in the pond across the street maybe, but that's about it.

Yeah. I would also add that the proposed allowed uses on the commercial side are all very neighborhood oriented uses. Correct. True. Yes.

You know, there's nothing intense here. I think, you know, daycare may be the most intense with peak hour

of operations, but it's still something that serves the people immediately in the surrounding residential neighborhoods.

That sounded like a motion.

Sounded like a motion, didn't it? I would like to make a motion to approve reszoning case number 25 CZ 22 as presented by the applicant.

We have a motion from Melissa. We have a second.

I second it. Mary.

Second from Mary. Discussion. All approved say I.

All oppose. Motion carries. We will now move into new business. Item number one with Amanda.

And then there's

Jeff.

Hello, Amanda.

Hello. So, I'm presenting these UDO amendments for Bruce tonight. You'll see his his name's not on the report, never mind. Okay. We have several amendments um proposed for you tonight, and I'll pause after each one to see if we have uh any questions. So the first amendment is actually a proposal from the environmental advisory board uh in order to create a definition for native um plants and um actually also adaptive um species and to clarify that all landscaping uh or that landscaping for all town property shall use only native plants listed within the town's u design and development manual. And so, uh, that is this, uh, subsection that's proposed here under the use of native or adaptive plant materials. Um,

that basically says what I've summarized that all new plantings um, on property owned or dedicated to the town of Apex. Um, including rights of way, parks, open space, and other publicly maintained areas shall utilize native plant materials as defined in the uh, definition section. We'll get to that. and preferences given to species native to North Carolina where practicable and plant species that shall be consistent with the town of Apex and that should say design and development manual. We have corrected that. Um and then final plants selections are subject to review by the TRC to ensure consistency. Um and so the following uh non-native plants are exempted from this policy and that includes non-native turf grass uh replacement of existing non-native plant species that have been removed or have died um provided that the replacements are of the same species. So if a development went in and they had a row of a particular tree that's not native or adaptive and they had to remove one then they could replant that same species to maintain that landscape design. And then non-native plants um are exempt when the primary purpose is for crop cultivation, scientific research, botanical or historical gardens or plantings for wildlife. And then we've added definitions for adaptive plants or um and also for native plants. Do you have any questions on this amendment?

Are we going to approve them individually?

Um we can. If you have an issue with one of the items, we can separate the vote. U but we don't have to take we can make that decision at the end. Um because if you're in agreement with all of them, we can do it in one vote. Okay.

Amanda, can you elaborate on why those are there are exceptions in certain Florida counties? Are these just the ones in the northernmost part of Florida?

Um I do not know the answer to that.

It's the same. You know, there's certain planting zones where it has freezes or

too hot or so those are the ones that don't get too hot.

Got it.

So, it has to do with climate zones.

That's what it sounds like. US

climate zones. Yeah.

Any other questions on this one?

Okay. All right. The next amendment is to the um office uh um the medical office uh medical or dental clinic or office to add the ability for overnight stays when they're conducted as part of a physicianordered sleep study. We've had some requests for um uh sleep doctors to be able to uh to come into Apex and if certain types of sleep apnnea studies or other types of conditions require you to be there overnight. And so um the current uh standard does not allow for um who are not lodged overnight. Um so this would allow for that when it's um as part of a study and um it does not include impatient care um routine provision of emergency services, surgical procedures, um medical observation exceeding 10 hours. So really getting at that office use for a very narrow purpose. Would they need to file um a CO

a certificate of need? I don't think this is just like your standard um sleep doctor like that is in most medical office parks. So, this is not a hospital use um or anything of that or a place where there's surgery being conducted. So, um

it'll be business, right?

It's it's more it's a doctor's office. It's just that you have to be observed sleeping with, you know, all of the things observing you and when you stop breathing. So,

so this will requ this this will allow the 24hour

uh they're not always open for 24 hours um but there is a limited function of the um of the practice that allows someone to come in um in the later in the evening and into the early morning

hours. So there could be some that might be 247 but it's a very limited operation at that point. All right. The next amendment is uh to the subdivision um design standards for streets rights of way in order to prohibit the use of artificial turf within the right of way. Uh this is uh being proposed uh because artificial turf within the right of way may present concerns related to long-term maintenance, durability, storm water performance, and consistency with town streetscape and landscaping standards. Um and so the intent is there is would be natural vegetation within street um rights of way. And so uh this states that it shall be prohibited um associated with new subdivisions or site plans approved a after April 28th, 2026. That's the anticipated approval date by town council. Um and it applies to all areas within the right of way uh including planting strips, medians, and other landscape and and unimproved areas. and it shall not be permitted as a substitute for required landscaping or open space. Um if there happens to be existing artificial turf within right of way apply before that then uh this would not require them to remove that. Any questions on that amendment? Okay. Number four um is uh an amendment to uh revise the scope of duties for the environmental advisory board. Um this was after some concerns uh expressed by some EAB members and town council members about uh the role of the EAB when reviewing resonings. Um, just to give you a little bit of history, when the EAB was initially established and their um, under their perview was to review resonings at the pre-application meeting stage, it was realized that that wasn't very productive because there wasn't enough information known about the resoning or what kind of other conditions would be offered to make that as um, productive as it could be. So,

the process was changed. So, it is submitted after application submittal and of course before it comes to you. Um and so the uh environmental advisory board has a standard list of environmental conditions that they have published and that they um recommend for resonings to mitigate the environmental impacts of the resoning. The disconnect that um seems to exist is that they don't always know what happens whether uh whether town council approves or denies the reszoning with some or all of the zoning conditions that they um have. And then there's a goal of providing more um feedback from them on the merits of the of one part of the resoning which is one of the legislative conditions that we got to read tonight. Number five, whether the proposed district minimizes environmental impacts and protection from significant deterioration of of water and air resources, wildlife habitat, scenic resources, and other natural resources. So, the proposed change would um allow would require the EAB to make a recommendation on whether the resoning meets um legislative condition number five or not. So, not just simply making recommendations for zoning conditions to be added, but also making um a recommendation on the resoning um and whether it meets number five. So, their recommendation is not whether the resoning meets all of the legislative considerations like you do and like town council does. It's limited to number five

or

and from a timing perspective you know I when do they meet make the recommendations how much time is there and then you guys get it back and I assume there's some discussion revisions before it comes to this board. So, is there a potential opportunity for there to be that continued information gap of

where they make a recommendation, but then, you know, it's maybe patched up and amended prior to it coming to council and planning board.

I think there is the potential that the EAB will end up reviewing resonings twice. Okay. um unless an applicant comes to the EAB with a list of environmental conditions that fully meets the EAB's expectations based on the particular reasoning at hand or unless they're able to add on the spot additional com conditions that they are are um suggesting at that meeting um then I don't know that they're going to be able you or they're going to so the option is the applicant will present present a list, maybe add more um if EAB feels like there's more to be added and then the EAB can make a recommendation that night. If the developer needs time to think about these things in the scope of the whole reasonzoning, like considering all of the aspects of the resoning, then they may have to come back another time if they're not ready to offer everything or else the EAB would be um recommending or perhaps making a recommendation that it does not meet

legislative condition number five. In their mind,

EAB meets monthly.

They do meet once a month um on the third Thursday of month

to review the to review um all all resonings.

And and um can you confirm their group of volunteers?

Yes.

Like

it's an appointed board just like this board is. Yes.

So if they don't recommend it

and it comes before us,

you it'll just be highlighted that way and we could still approve it. And so can town town staff or town council

correct? Just like we have now, like right now in your staff reports, we list all the recommended environmental conditions that are recommended by the EAB. And in the other column, we indicate whether the applicant added it, didn't add it, or they added maybe an

amended version of what EAB requested. So, you're already getting this information now. It's just not coming with an official recommendation of whether um that legislative condition is met. So, there's a lot of similarity in what is happening. It's just that they're not making a recommendation on the whole and and oftentimes what we see is that the developer is working on which conditions they can add or how they can add them after the meeting is occurs. So they're not always offering all of those recommended condition or suggested conditions at that EAB meeting

because they make recommendations only. It's not like they have to follow. Right.

Right. Just like you you're a recommending body. you know, you could recommend denial of a a reszoning and town council could approve it or vice versa. So, ultimately all decisions are up to town council.

I I just I'm concerned about timing. I think that and and also clarity as I think that anybody who would come before us would say, please just tell us what it is you want us to do and what are the requirements minimally and then please do not make me come back three or four times. Oh, I thought about this. It it's a lot of money. It adds anywhere from 20 to 24% to the cost of a home when everyone's concerned about it because it's time, right? And so I just really want to make sure that whatever we're doing is being cognizant of we were just clear this is what we we're asking you to do. It's the same thing with the housing. It is not a requirement because it legally cannot be and it needs to be really clear how they can meet that and really clear on what happens if they can't meet it because it's not fair to put that on other people. We're putting asking them to do these things and then we're not clear with them on what they need to do. So I just I'm not going to be in favor of something that's going to add time and it's going to be confusing and I can't see at the moment what it is because I listen to all of that. I listen I I asked the questions about housing. I asked the questions about um

the environmental board. I I think clover grass is great. We're growing it in my yard. It's fine. But I get it that some it's not acceptable everywhere. So I'm respectful of that. I just really don't want to add time and confusion to people who are coming for us to extend that to because yeah time I totally hear you and I'm on board with all you're putting down for that official approval or denial. Are there like any additional legal requirements that the town is going to have to deal with as part of that or like similar like what happens here what happened here tonight? We have to go through that process. Are they going to have to go through a similar process if they are like nope deny or

no with their limited scope um it would not be to the level of um involvement if there was a recommendation for denial like you have to go through because you're looking at every single legislative consideration. Um, and there's requirements in in state law for how planning board operates in town council. So, um, no, they it would not be the same and and their recommendation should be focused on the environmental impact. That's that's the intent as it was expressed to us to recommend for

Yeah. I mean, why are we

makes sense? Sorry to step. It's just I there's conditions. There's what the UDO requires and then there's additional conditions. And I guess I just, you know, in terms of timing, not having the additional conditions, requests that are above and beyond be a hold up from achieving a positive recommendation, which again I we do it too. So fully acknowledging that just talking. Sorry, Stephen. Go ahead.

I was going to say why why are we treating this board any differently than the other boards like afford from an affordability standpoint or you know other boards that we have? Well, the there's not a housing advisory board um any longer. And so there's not another board that a reasonzoning has to go before um it's they go to EAB, they come to you, and then they go to town

council and of course all the while they're working on with staff on on revisions for um you know, before it gets to you. Um

so the is I mean this is what Jeff was talking about, right? Like number four. So, I mean, I guess with Stephen, you know, like

just get it right in the beginning, right? Before you bring it to us, get it right or get it close to right. I mean, it's

we're talking about, you know, kicking it back potentially because of this.

Well, the intent is that they would get their EAB recommendation before it comes to you. So, the intent is not that it comes to you and then if it if not everything is there, it goes back to the AB. The intent is that they go to the EAB, get a recommendation from them, and then it goes before it even gets scheduled for public hearing before you.

But do they have to change the thing if it doesn't if it's not recommended?

I think that's just their risk, right? Like if we recommend denial, it's the applicant's risk if they take it to council or not,

right? So it it may not change, you know, they may take the input from the the EAB and say, "Okay, this is serious. they didn't think, you know, I need to see what I can do.

They may make no changes as um you know, it was said it's it's the applicants risk and then it's up to you as the you as the planning board to look at all the legislative considerations and same for town council and weigh everything al together and whether the reasoning should be approved or denied. So in here it says it's requested by planning staff but there has been conversation with the advisory board members that they want to have this.

There was a conversation

level

they they held a I believe a special environmental advisory board meeting or at an environmental advisory board meeting they discussed this and there is a town council liaison at those meetings.

Are those open to the public?

They are open to the public. Yep.

Do we have a

No, you act completely separate from town council.

Just out of curiosity, has the EAB their process h has have they streamlined

the planning department reviews? um like I mean I I know it's new but um

the EAB's been around since 2020. Um I was there for the the very first one and I would say we've refined and made improvements to the process along and and it used to be that they would talk about resonings for a very long time each like all the potential environmental things and I think that has become more streamlined as they've adopted a standard a standardized list of suggested zoning conditions that could be offered. So, we've worked out the wording so that it's legally enforcable. And we've done a lot of work, the board's done a lot of work to streamline that and make things go quicker um at EAD meetings. Um

yeah, it's not it's not new as far as resoning's going um before then.

How would they need to get it twice then? That's what I'm trying to understand.

Theoretically, I mean, it could be that the applicant is just like, "This is what I've offered. I'm not offering anymore. Please make your recommendation." and then it's just that they make the recommendation at that same meeting. But if the applicants really wants that recommendation from them of approval on that legislative condition, then they may say, "Okay, I want to go back and work on this. I'll come back."

I can promise you that like almost no one is going to want to do that because of time. And so what I'm I'm concerned about is do they feel like they have to? And it feels to me a little bit like some of the other things that we are suggesting and we can't require. And I just I'm just concerned about that. If we all say that this is what you have to do to avoid the and it's clear, then let's just put it out there and it's clear and it's good. But I'm just concerned about them. I I think they want to be in the good graces of it and I think they will try and I'm just worried about them

being delayed and setting up a thing unintentionally. I don't think that's the intent is to drag feet. I don't think that's the intent. My concern is I'm already hearing on other things that are not environmental where there's a lot of confusion on how do I implement that and what am I supposed to do and I just want to make sure that we're being thoughtful if we're going to change a process.

Right. And then we went through this tonight within all of our legislative considerations. A lot of it's subjective. So

correct

where the timing piece of it I guess and I know that you guys do a lot of work in between meetings after you get recommendations and feedback. So that's the other part of it is just if they go back to you guys and address a lot of the staff

after maybe they've been recommended denial before our prior to this meeting

and that could be reflected in staff reports. I mean that that could be that could be reflected. I mean we just have to work that out as as staff how we how we represent that.

Yeah.

So

okay.

Well the and I might be wrong for saying this a little bit but I'll go say it anyway. The concern I've got is that we're giving we're giving this authority to a board that has well he or she is just a liazison. You got a council member that has an active part in these meetings. Is that correct?

They do not vote.

No, but they but they they can discuss.

Yes.

That's 20% of the council.

That's a good point.

is present to

influence

potentially. And I'm not saying the current, but but down the road we we've know we know of we know of past people on the board that have tried to have a heavy hand sometimes.

So,

and just a reminder, you know, resonings are legislative uh decisions which applicants can meet and talk with council members before the public hearing and vote in a meeting, outside of a meeting, you know, wherever. Should we vote on this separately?

I will. I think we'll move on.

We can we can go ahead and pull this one out if you want to. And you can if you're ready or if you want to just hear the last one.

Yeah, let's keep going and hear the rest.

Okay, we just have one more. And uh it's fairly straightforward. It's a an amendment to the flood damage prevention um overlay district standards in order to update the requirements for providing flood data. And this would allow applicants the option to use uh base flood elevations shown on the uh North Carolina Emergency Management non-regulatory flood plane map as an alternative to commissioning a hydraulic study and report. So, and that was requested from our water resources staff. So again, we can vote on them all together. We can pull one or more out and vote on them separately. It's at the will of the planning board.

Thank you. Like we need to pull number four out.

Have request to pull out number four of the new business item.

Second, Christie.

We have a second. Did we have any discussion?

I think we did.

Well, I was just going to allow anyone else that maybe Yeah, we did have quite a bit of a discussion.

I don't have to make a motion to to separate them out. So, you can just identify which one you want to vote on.

Okay.

I Sarah would like to make a motion to approve amendments one through five exception of four.

I'll second.

We have a motion in a second. Mr. Hastings. All approved say I.

All that oppose. Motion carried. And we have one more motion.

Before you move on, Amanda, do you feel you have enough information? Council is definitely going to want to know all their comments.

I mean, um, my plan is to go back and watch the the video and and get that all documented. But what I heard and you can this will be important um as you're summarizing your vote is the concern about timing um for the process that it extending um extending the process.

I'm really worried about that

about the what

ambiguity or potential ambiguity like is this required or is it not required? What do I need to do?

And I think Jeff raised a really good point about the influence and this is not reflective of current council at all but

right

elections happen changes happen. So

the influence of a single member on a advisory board

for preventative measures,

right?

Yeah. The influence part just we got to consider that. So, do we have to vote down number four? I don't know.

So, do we formally have to vote down number four?

Yes.

Okay.

Yeah. Yeah. There has to be a Sorry. There there there has to be a a motion in a second.

Wait. Do we first have to make a motion

to include Mr. roaches on public

the the initial did you make a mo you did you make a motion

I've not yet

okay so whoever makes the motion would need to say whatever you want to say as part of your motion proposed changes things to be added

I'm not making the motion then no that's just that's a lengthy motion

you can do I don't

but do you know exactly what we want him to say or is it just right

that's the problem I've got you concerns with it. So, we want to have it pulled.

I think it's simple. I could be wrong. Now, if I'm mistaken, y'all let me know, but I think it's a motion to strike number four from new business and to add Mr. Roach's uh comments at public comment as a condition. Is that correct? As to be added

as an opinion. As an opinion,

consideration.

Is that the correct? your the the motion would be to recommend denial of this UDO amendment with the minutes from the public forum section and this public hearing discussion to be included with

correct

that sounds great

good job

well

yes right

we do have a planning board planning board report to town council but it's not going to be the full

right

okay

I will just draw attention to it.

Okay,

we have a second on that.

Not yet.

Y

I'll second that. Mary,

that Mary has a second. Um, all in approval say I.

All that oppose.

Motion carried. Kate

Mary second.

Can I make a last motion?

You can certainly make a motion.

I Sarah like to make a motion to adjourn this meeting.

A motion to adjourn. Sarah second.

I'll second. Jeff.

Jeff. Second. All approved say I.

I.

All oppose. Motion carried.