Planning Board Meeting

And and not a issue with the only issue is best not.

Where is that on here? Is it number one?

The um red the change of red plan. Okay. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Yeah, it's gone.

Or used to go there. But I used to go there.

I mean it's so close.

Right. Yeah. Yeah, I understand. And it used to be

In the office of the planning board member.

It's a little

Sorry, I was just

Mhm.

Good afternoon. Welcome to the town of Apex Planning Board meeting. Today's date is May 11th, 2026. And if we could please take a moment by our head to head and prayer. Lord, give us wisdom beyond our understanding. Help us see not just what's in front of us, but what will come from the decisions we make. Guide our thoughts, remove confusion, and help us discern what is right for this community. These things we ask in your name. Amen. Amen. Please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge 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. Do we have Uh, any items of information from staff?

First of all, I know a lot of you have already met him, but I'd like to introduce our newest planning board member representing the ETJ area. This is, uh, Mark uh, Spanioli and he, uh, just a little bit about him. He holds his, uh, Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering and he's a licensed professional engineer here in North Carolina as well as Florida. Uh, Mark is currently the director of engineering for the town of Morrisville um, and has worked as director in other places over the past 20 years. Um, he's also worked as a consulting engineer in, uh, private land development and also currently serves on the board of adjustment for Wake County as well as the one water partnership. Um, so we're happy to have Mark join us and all the experience that he, um, brings.

Welcome, Mark. And there's one more item. So, um, coming soon we are the town is debuting a new portal for all new development application and permit submittals. Uh, the portal is,

um, named My Services and there's some introductory, uh, information about this portal on our website, um, that you can see on the link there. So, anyone that's submitting any type of development application or any type of permit, um, uh, building permit will use this, um, system. We will still be using GeoCivics for all of our plan review comments and resubmittals. Um, so good news there. Uh, this goes live on June 1st. Uh, imminent. Uh, and applicants can begin creating their My Services accounts on May 19th. Uh, this webpage will be updated frequently over the next couple of weeks with more information. It will house training materials for customers, um, and so, uh, looking forward to this. It's going to launch June June 1st. Any questions about this?

One quick question. So, when goes live, will there be a delay on the interactive development map on when people can look at what people are submitting on that portal?

This is completely separate from our interactive development map.

Okay.

Um so, there should should be no delays um uh with updates to that map.

Okay. Perfect.

Yep.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Thank you, ma'am. Now, we will move into public comment. Uh if you've not done so already, to your left you can sign in to speak. Purpose of the public comment is to allow the 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 please be limited to 3 minutes. If there's a large number of speakers for one particular item, the planning board may ask that a representative be selected to speak for the entire group and limit the comments to 9 minutes. do we have anyone signed up to speak on any non-agenda item?

And a Mr. Roach.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, I'd like to start by thanking everybody here for putting an engineer on the planning board. Thank you. I like that PE at the end of the name. It always goes well. So, um I appreciate it. Uh Jeff Roach, Peak Engineering and Design. Um I got two items tonight. One is new business item number one, which are the additional um two zoning districts, the B3 and the HI zoning district you guys are going to hear from in here in a little bit. Um it it's not my place to comment on what you guys do or don't know, but it's my place to look through and say, "Wow, that's a lot of changes." Um you guys get your agendas on Thursdays and there were a ton of changes creating a B3 zoning district and creating an HI zoning district. And later tonight you'll see another UDO amendment which actually brings in a detention center into that HI zoning district. So, I just want to kind of point out we have a really solid ordinance. We've learned it over the last 20 years. I've learned how to work through it. Staff has been great. And just so you guys know, the last UDO amendment I believe that it created a new zoning district was back in 2009, 2010. Some of you are around. Jeff, Mr. Hastings, you're shaking your head and that was for Veridia. It was an SD zoning district and it's been used once in its lifetime. So, I'm not saying these zoning districts aren't needed. I'm not saying they aren't there. I just think there's a lot of technical data that you guys are going to hear a 20-minute speech on tonight and then be able to say yes, we agree or disagree on all this information in 20 minutes. So, I just want to make sure you guys take the time you understand what it is, what's coming in front of you tonight. Um the second one is the old business item. I was up here last month. It's concerning the EAB powers and duties change. Um I I outlined at that point what my concerns were about EAB having additional powers and duties for you know, making recommendations for zoning approvals. And I think it's very concerning in my there from where we stand on my side, on the development side, on the engineering side, on the approval side. For a couple reasons. One of course is you guys spoke about timing last month about how it slows the process. It introduces a sec possibly a second EAB

meeting. A lot of these things are still to be worked out. I know EAB members are here. I know Terry's here tonight probably for this as well. So, it introduces a introduces a lot of things. There are 41 recommended conditions that we go through for EAB when we make an initial zoning recommenda- or zoning submittal package. We pick those which we understand that the the applicant or the project can support. We then come to the EAB meetings. we make our presentation. EAB then recommends five others or 25 others, however met whatever they think is reasonable. They are fully focused on the environmental impacts of a project. They do not look at affordable housing. Um I wrote a whole bunch of items down. Um there are 10 legislative considerations that planning board looks at when you guys vote to recommend approval to the town council, and then town council then evaluates. Um the EAB is being asked to look at one of those. Well, they don't get a full picture of what a zoning case is if they're only focused on the environmental, the sustainability side of things. So, what's going to happen is EAB is going to turn into a planning board meeting where they're now recommending approval. So, it's a concern of ours. Um you guys do a great job. You're a very technical board. They're a very technical board in their own rights, but they don't look at transportation plan amendments, they don't look at overall zoning and land use issues when they start talking about environmental issues. So, it's a very concern of it's a concern of mine and other engineers that I've talked to in the last couple days and last month um that presented in front of you guys. Um I'm also concerned because there is no town council representative at planning board because you guys are making a direct recommendation to the town council. If the environmental advisory board switches and starts making recommendations on approval or denial of zonings, I am not sure that they can have a council liaison in that meeting and providing input at those meetings. Um even though it's very important to hear from Terry or whoever the uh representative is at those EAB meetings. Um And similar to the parks and recreation advisory board, ultimately the EAB is a board that recommends approval um of

their conditions, what they're asking for. They're not asking council to say or they're not telling council that we support this project because they're doing warm season grasses or environmental signage or treatment. So, it's just a concern of ours. I know you guys brought it up last month uh and recommended unanimously denial going to council. Council then kicked it back to you guys. Um so, I'm very interested to hear what happens tonight and what kind of questions or changes uh come about. I appreciate your time and thank you for the 2 and 1/2 or 3 minutes you guys you guys gave me. Appreciate it.

Thank you, Mr. Roach. We also have on the list Michelle O'Connor.

All right. Good afternoon all. So, I've spoken plenty of times at town council. Some of you may know me for speaking on the data center a lot. I'm actually here to endorse the idea of the EAB having the opportunity to say whether or not an application meets the environmental conditions they've specified. And I really need to just point out what the data center application taught all of us. I know it never made it to this board, but definitely taught me a lot, which is you don't know what you don't know. And that you know, what the EAB was given a gigantic task on October 16th that I don't think I even appreciated the full gravity of that they didn't have the full opportunity to truly vet. I know that there are pre-specified environmental conditions that are vetted by the planning board sorry, the planning department. I respect that they are legally kosher and and all of that, but there was there was so much more that night that like should have been done concerning the noise. I don't think anyone mentioned the fact that a biological specialist is required to address anything related to wildlife and noise. There was a little bit regarding the DBC, but not enough to really fully address all of the environmental conditions for the application. So, you know, a lot of people that night, you know, unfortunately mistook that to mean to mean an endorsement, but the reality is is that those 20 or 21 conditions were

never going to fully satisfy the gravity of the environmental impact the data center would have had in our community on my home. So, I do think it's an important um thing for this board to consider an amendment in which the EAB is not only able to say where it stands and an application really has gone through the process of maximizing, or I should say minimizing, its environmental impact and truly minimizing it, but also having the opportunity to table. I recognize that movement and or continue, I should say. I recognize continuing the process, not having unnecessary delays, is important. And 90% of the time that probably isn't going to happen, but for these questionable applications, there will definitely be industries that come through that try to do the same thing the data center application did, and I think we need to be proactive and prepared for them. So, this board does deserve the opportunity to really expand its power within its purview of maximizing environmental conditions and making it clear whether or not an application does or not. And I thank you for the time.

Thank you, Michelle. Um I do not have any other names. However, are there any others for public comment on items that are not on this agenda? Hearing none, we will close public comment, and we will move into consent item number one, minutes from the April 13th, 2026 meeting. I know we've

I'd like to make a motion to approve

We have a motion. From April.

Second.

From Christie.

Second from Christie. All in favor, say I.

I.

All opposed. Motion carried. Okay. Now we'll move into public hearing section. Public hearing has the same 3-minute rule. We will now open with item number one. Um But before we do, though, I'd like to I'd like to recuse myself from item

number one. We have a motion.

I have a motion to accuse Keith Braswell from item number one.

We have a motion. Second.

Second.

I have a second from Daniel.

I'll let it

All that approve, say I.

I.

All that oppose.

Motion carried.

Aye.

Thank you, chair. Uh public hearing of possible motion regarding changes to the Thoroughfare and Collector Street Plan Map of the Transportation Plan. The amendment is associated with proposed development at 2320 1010 Road and would realign the future major collector street between the existing terminus of Pristine Water Drive and 1010 Road. Ms. Cox.

All yours.

Thank you. Good evening, everybody. Um so just to orient you to the exhibit, uh this orange and brown line is 1010 Road. Um you can see it's about where Penny Road comes in right here. And then down here is Pristine Water Drive, existing Pristine Water Drive. We have a future major collector street on our transportation plan now um to extend Pristine Water Drive um through the Knights Play Golf Course following this green and white dash um to intersect 1010 Road across from Penny Road. Um the purpose of that major collector street is to provide future connectivity um should Knights Play redevelop. It's not a roadway that we would build, you know, if Knights Play did not redevelop. Um and then that would provide a connection between 1010 all the way to 55. Uh as mentioned, 2320, which is labeled here, is proposed for development and they have proposed a realignment of that major collector street slightly north. You can see the uh green and white line here,

um which would provide an opportunity for that parcel to have a second point of access. Um it would align directly across from Penny Road. So, um that would be a full movement access point even once 1010 is widened. Um and it also minimizes the impacts to Knight's Place. Still impacts that property, but minimizes the impacts to the parking lot. Um our purpose is to consider the amendment. The actual construction across Knight's Place would be a negotiation between private property owners. Um the idea is that the existing Knight's Place driveway would be a right in right out if NCDOT approves that. Um but there would still be a full movement access at the Penny intersection. Um planning staff do recommend this amendment. It was also reviewed by uh transportation, infrastructure, and development, parks and recreation, police, and fire, and all were uh either supportive or had no concerns. So, I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

Good. Any questions for Ms. Cox?

Yes, sir.

Um is 2320 just a parcel on the on the right hand side of that larger vacant tract that I'm not exactly

Um I'll outline it for you. So, it's this one. You can see the parcel lines. It's a large parcel.

Okay, it cuts right there. Okay.

Yeah.

Okay, thanks.

That help?

Yes, thank you.

Okay.

So, as part of their development, they would construct that portion of the future road.

Yes, so they would their intent would be to construct and and they are here. Uh they can speak to any questions you may have. Um but they would construct from um to the edge of their property. There

would still be a gap between existing pristine water and 2320.

Any other questions? Okay.

Thank you.

Uh do we have a representative of the developer like to speak?

Good evening. Uh my name is Clay Coyle. I'm with Foundry Commercial and with me tonight are Mr. Kevin Dean from Kimley-Horn and Nestor Hernandez with Thomas and Hutton. They're our project engineers on the 2320 project that we're going to work on as a result of this amendment. Um but yes, we are here tonight. I appreciate Ms. Cox's presentation. She did a nice job summarizing everything and we're happy to have her support. Um I would just add that as as part of our cooperation with the Knights Play Golf Course, we will be building a dedicated driveway from their current parking lot out to the new Pristine Water Drive extension, which will give their traffic access to that signalized intersection at Penny Road. Hopefully make it safer for those customers to get out onto 1010. Uh we'll also be making some parking lot improvements to the golf course and so there's there's a nice relationship we've established with that neighboring parcel. Um happy to answer any other questions or if you have technical type type items, um we have the pros.

Would would that be eliminating their current entrance into Knights Play and It will become a

with this one?

a right in and right out only. So, you no longer have people trying to make a left out of their current. Yeah.

Okay. Um and is So, would you You will crossing the Colonial Pipeline?

We will be, yes.

And you have the support of Colonial Pipeline in this?

We we are in talks with them and yes,

they have parameters around how we design that crossing and as long as we follow their their rules and and work with them, we should be able to cross.

Okay, good. Thank you.

You're welcome.

Any questions for the applicant? Yes, sir.

Uh, do you have a site plan already developed for the 2320 or a preliminary site plan?

We we have some test fits and and we're working through design. Um, we have a preliminary

connection at 1010 to this to this street coming through your development?

Another connection to

Another street connection that goes from this street to 1010 Road through your development?

have internal roads and parking areas and then the parcel does currently have one curb cut out onto 1010, which we would we would use, yes.

But not necessarily a public road that would serve this almost like a north-south connector.

No, ma'am.

All right, yeah. Thank you.

So, you wouldn't be utilizing like I think it's Caterpillar Drive that's over there?

We will not be utilizing Caterpillar Drive. Yeah, that's a adjacent parcel.

Okay, okay. That's

Thanks.

Would your existing turn would it be a right in right out or would it be full access?

We're we're working through submittals with NCDOT and and you know, going that route. Um, but our our preference to have this new Pristine Water Drive extension to a signalized intersection is for the majority of our traffic to use that that movement. Yeah.

Does the proposal include um a reconfiguration of the existing parking lot? Cuz the new road will bifurcate the the existing, right?

for the Knights Play Golf Course? So, we're As as drawn, the new road will not impact their current parking field. And then we're going to give them a new coat of asphalt and expand it. So they have they have more parking.

This was sort of the the genesis of the agreement was to amend the the routing so that Knights Play is not impacted.

Any further questions for the applicant? Okay. Thank you very much.

Did we have anybody speak? Okay. All right. Um with that we will close the public forum and bring it back to the council for a discussion and possible motion. I am I'll start off and say, you know, I don't play golf, but I know Knights Play. Used to play there. Um I'm thrilled that what you're doing is starting to alleviate some of the impacts this might have on the only par three that's close to the Apex proximity. So um given the support of Knights Play and working with Colonial Pipeline, I appreciate all the effort that's gone into this.

And Penny Road at 10:10 that's very recently become signalized. I say very recently, but it could have been within the past two years it all runs together. Uh but just to expand on Jeff's comments, it does seem like a win-win for both properties where we don't have to bifurcate the existing parking lot um and can achieve results for both groups. Which almost sounds like a motion. With that, I will make a motion to approve the changes to the thoroughfare and collector street plan map uh and the transportation plan to realign Pristine Water Drive and 1010 Road.

We have a motion from Alyssa. Do we have a second?

Second.

We have a second from Mark. Any further discussion? All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? That comes across unanimously. Thank you very much.

Mr. Hastings, can I make a motion to bring Mr. Braswell back into the meeting?

I guess. Yes. We have a motion from Alyssa, second from Mary. Uh all in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? You got the gavel back. Mr. Braswell.

sir. Wonderful job. Wonderful job, as always. Well, I guess uh next we will move into new business, item number one. Uh we will be hearing from Bruce. Possible motion regarding various amendments to the UDO.

Good evening, chair and board members. It's good to see you today. We're going to go over quite a bit of information today about on three different UDO amendments to start with. Um so, we'll give some information. A lot of the changes we're going to go over in the first amendment um it's going to seem like a lot, but a lot of them is really just adjusting references and adding the new terms, but we'll go over that line by line for you and so you can understand that. And then we'll have an opportunity for additional questions at the end. Okay. So, we're here today. We have first amendment again. This is to introduce and establish a transitional business or B3 in the heavy industrial HI zoning district. Um the the these districts are intended to expand the town's zoning framework and to better accommodate a range of commercial and industrial uses that are not fully addressed with existing current districts. The B3 is intended to provide a transitional area between higher intensity vehicle corridors and lower intensity zoning districts, while the heavy industrial district is intended to accommodate high industrial uses that have a greater potential for impacts than those that are currently allowed in the light industrial district. So, on your screen and your staff report that you received, you'll see that there are all these sections here that have been affected in some way by these amendments that we're proposing in this creation or the establishment of these new zoning districts. But just to point out several of these, at least you know, nine of these are really only references and where we've had to go in and change a number or a letter or things like that. So, we'll you'll see that as we go through, but I just wanted to bring that to your attention that a good portion of the original are actually just changing reference numbers that aren't in the UDO

itself. So, we'll get started. We started This is one of the ones where we're changing the numbers itself. So, under development approvals for planned development districts, it referenced the intensity and dimensional standards table where it went from 5.1 1 to 4. We've had to expand and add the industrial new industrial district and the new business district. So, this has had to change from 3 to 4 in the reference. You'll see this repeatedly. Again, under the standards for the transitional neighborhood conditional zoning district, same thing. Again, under development approvals for site plan, same issue, changing from 5 to 6. One thing that we have added is under the zoning districts area of the UDO. Originally, light industrial used to be under 3.2.2, which was the business districts. We felt like if we were going to go through and add this heavy industrial district, it would be a good time to pull out light industrial and really ensure that we have the industrial districts together and have only the business districts together. So, in this slide, you're seeing that B3 has been added and that we've removed light industrial and created the new industrial districts for this section. Again, this happened in the conditional zoning sections for the B3 conditional zoning. And again, we've pulled out the light industrial and created a new conditional industrial zoning district section. Again, you can see below that doing this will cause us to have to move some sections down. And so, what we've had to do is change the reference numbers in the UDO for those sections. We've added under district purposes, we've added purposes for the new districts. So, for the B3, the purpose of it again is to provide that service-oriented commercial uses in areas that act as that transition along auto-oriented commercial corridors that are adjacent to residential neighborhoods. This required us again to move things around a little bit and to push everything down. So, here on this page, the only thing that changed is the reference letter that it goes to. So, D became E, E became F, etc. And then the light industrial was removed and put into the industrial section.

Now, under the industrial districts for purposes, we uh the wording for the light industrial hasn't changed. Same purpose as has always been there. It just has been added to this new section. That's why it's underlined and bold. For the heavy industrial, the purpose of the heavy industrial district is to provide sufficient lands in appropriate locations for high-intensity industrial uses, manufacturing, processing, or similar uses that may generate noise, traffic, or other impacts not suitable for residential or commercial areas. The district is intended to accommodate uses that require larger sites, specialized infrastructure, or separation from incompatible uses while promoting orderly development and protecting public health, safety, and welfare. Again, that required us to push everything down with the creation of the new industrial districts. And so, the again, references were changed. Required us to add the two new districts to the the your 4.2 the use table here. We've highlighted it in the staff report and then on the presentation, you can see where we've added it. B3, a lot of uses that are appropriate or allowed currently already in B2 are also being permitted in in B3 as well. We can see like accessory apartments is one that's going to be added. Nothing is added on this first page for heavy industrial. On the second page, you can see that we've allowed church or place of worship, daycare facilities, government services, veterinary clinics, and things like that, which are compatible with other districts. In the in the business district, again, nothing's been added to the heavy industrial on this page. Highlighting here again in the B3 and in the heavy industrial, utility minor has been permitted in both these districts. This is usually universally permitted, so we can ensure that utilities are installed and available to be used there. On the next page for B3, we have greenways and the same as well for high industrial, heavy industrial. Park for B3, active and passive. And then we allow looks like youth day camps also in B3 as well, but again, the only use permitted

that was added in the heavy industrial was the greenways so they could cross if necessary. On the next page, we allow commissary and restaurants general in the B3. The only thing added for heavy industrial on this page would be a dispatching office. Again, for B3, also medical or dental office and clinics and potential medical, dental, or laboratories as well for B3. On this page, office and business as well for B3, pilot plant as well as a research facility might be uses that we think should be permitted as part of the heavy industrial district. And then for B3 again, the hotel, motel has been a permitted use we've suggested. Things like artisan studios, barber shops, bookstores, and convenience store are other items we think should be permitted within this new business district as well. Farmers markets, farmers markets, floral shops, grocery specialty, newsstands, personal service also in the B3 district. Retail sales general, studio for art, pet services, and lastly, we have like micro distillery, micro breweries be permitted in the B3 as well. On those last pages, nothing was else was suggested to be permitted in the heavy industrial. Some other areas where we've added new language under 4.3.1 under residential uses for use classifications, there's an accessory apartment just stating that a secondary dwelling unit inside or added to an existing single-family dwelling or an accessory to a structure can be permitted. We kind of referenced almost every section that this would be permitted in previously, so like your B1s, your B2s, your conditional zoning districts. All we've done is add B3 transitional zoning district to this list, so it goes in order, B1, B2, B3, and then it goes into your conditional zoning districts where this use would be permitted.

Same thing here for retail sales and services. Under building supplies for retail, this was allowed in the B2 districts. We just added additionally that for uses that have limited um outdoor outdoor materials that this would be permitted in these two districts as well as long as they don't exceed the already existing standards. Again here, this is just changing the the reference number on number G. So from four to five. Again, four to five here, and then four to five as well. In this page here, we have again, we're just adding the B3 and the HI to this under wireless support structures and wireless communication facilities. Before it calculate as part of the wireless support code, commercial zones, commercial zones shall be referred to rights of way adjacent to the following zones. So as part of that, we've included the other zoning districts where this could be a possibility. In commercial uses and under 4.4.5, cafeterias which are allowed as part of the light industrial district, we've just added that they may be permitted as part of the heavy industrial district as well in case there's on-site feeding for employees or things like that. Um for office and research purposes, um if they were to have for contractors' offices, if they were to have eight standard size contractor vehicles or other storage material and equipment, which is allowed in the light industrial district now. We just applied the same standards to the heavy industrial district moving forward on the tech flex zoning districts as well. Same for medical laboratory. And same for hotels and motels for the B2 and B3 as well. Again, for accessory apartment in another section of the UDO for compatible character. We have here again, we're just again, it it already lists the B1, the B2, the B3, and then the conditional zoning districts. We're just adding the transitional business to this list as well. And again, under ownership for accessory apartments, this already again listed

the B1, B2, and we're just adding the B3 as well to be listed with the other conditional zoning districts. Um we are adding the B3 zoning district to under 5.1.2 business districts in your intensity and dimensional standards section of the UDO. Uh so, the these are where you find your setbacks and your max building height and your max build on percentage. So, front will be 25, 15 for the side, 20 for the rear, 15 for the corner, 6 ft maximum height, and a maximum of 70% built upon area. In this section before, you had your light industrial uses, which have been removed and moved into the new industrial district section. Which is shown here on the screen now. So, these numbers are the exactly the same as they were previously for the light the light industrial. The other thing we've added is the heavy industrial district area, which all the uses with setbacks of 50, 50, 50, 50 along the front, side, rear, and corner for the time being, and then the max height of 70 ft with a max built upon area of 70 as well. Uh again, in chapter five article five, there were some changes where we had to move the tables around or down to add the new one. So, again, references were changed. So, in this case, three to four, four to five, five to six. Um we've added them to your buffering table in 8.2.6. Um you can see here with the little red boxes that B3 has been added to the corresponding business districts just kind of show what type of buffers would be required when adjacent to different type of businesses. And the same with the heavy industrial with the light industrial and tech flex as well. Uh in article nine, that is where we have um our design standards and things of that nature. So, we already have design standards applied to light industrial buildings, which include um massing breaks and architecture, glazing, windows, and things like that. We're just applying the same same uh requirements to heavy industrial buildings as well. And that's the purpose here. And so, that's all that's been changed is in we're just adding heavy industrial after light industrial for the zoning section.

So, both in 9.2 and 9.4, that's all that's changed. We've added that. As well in 9.3.3, which is about recesses and projections. And then in B of the same section for repeating design patterns. For facades, for exterior wall cladding. And also for colors and materials in section 9.3.5. And that's the So, just for the zoning districts, those are those are what we have at the moment. If you have any questions, we're happy to answer those for you now before we move on to the next one.

I have a question.

Yeah.

Did you guys do an assessment to see what existing parcels would allow would accommodate the heavy industrial that you're recommending?

So, at this point in time, it's since there's no uh heavy industrial zoning districts on the ground, they would if they if someone wanted to come in once this was established to be a heavy industrial zoning district, they would have to still look at the future land use map and find a place where it was appropriate for industrial employment or industrial services or things like that as part of that map. And then it have they would apply for it and we'd have to discuss whether or not it was appropriate for what they were proposing. Um as you'll see later in another amendment, there will only be very limited uh to start with, there'll be very limited uses that will even be permitted in this zoning district without requiring additional UDO amendments to to allow the use there first and foremost. So, there wasn't an inventory of like I We didn't look at the future use mapping at all that or all the how many parcels are potentially available to be rezoned for industrial uses at this time, but it if we're not changing that map, it's the same as it is right now.

I guess what I was asking is if you're looking at a a heavy industrial use, like say a data center, and you would really rather that thing not be next to a neighborhood, right? And you put it in the middle of a what is a farm currently, just for um example. Um, how many spots could actually use um meet that use? And then do you need all the others? So, if In other words, if you're in the middle

of a 50-acre parcel and you can't be seen, do they need to do all of the exterior? Cuz you were just adding them on as if And so, that's that was kind of my question is like if if what we'd really rather have is an isolation of some of those heavy industrial uses, so to very much uh lessen the impact on existing residences, understandably so, do we then need to, if it is isolated, go ahead and layer on those extras that we do require for businesses that are much closer in proximity to existing homes?

Sure, there might be a give and take for consideration for like how how far or how hidden away something is, like as a use itself. Um, I think as we explore more heavy industrial uses that may be permitted in the future, like like a per per se data center, they'll have their We're going to really look at the perceived or what should be the standards applied to that individual use specifically, where maybe there maybe they're required to be 500 or 1,000 ft away from the property line where they won't be seen or things like that, which will be addressed in kind of exploring those standards for that time. But, this is just a kind of establish the zoning districts um right now and to so there wouldn't be that fine level of detail until we get to adding that particular use itself like a data center or some other type of heavy industrial use.

But if we enact this then don't they have to follow that? I mean or do

They have to follow the

Am I missing

They have to follow so the use itself how how it's broken up there's the zoning districts and so if a zoning district is established it's already on the ground and they have a permitted by right use they could come in that day and start working towards the approvals and doing the site plans and things like that. Right now since there's no heavy industrial on the ground they would have to come in for a rezoning wherever they are. So one they would need to have a permitted use that's allowed by the UDO in that district. So we're really going to be looking at probably one use as of today that'll be permitted if in the future town council approves it. So but then there'll be specific standards for that specific use. So like that could be distance that could be design standards that could be noise mitigation things like that and in addition there will probably be zoning conditions applied through the rezoning

process that are specific to the site itself because you could have an area in the middle of that farm where the topo is different so maybe they have to do some additional screening or things like that. So we really have to focus on the site specific in the zoning conditions whereas the standards will be more generic like you have to be this far away you have to have this these big old setbacks and things like that which could be amended during the zoning conditions but um right now they would still have their own individual standards if that use is ever added to the UDO. Right now there's no use associated with heavy industrial at this

No and I and I understood thought it was well done and I understood what you were trying to do and completely agree. I think what as somebody who's new to the planning board what I want to be sure of is that I'm not giving a thumbs up to things that then future applicants would have to come regard and and and apply abide by regardless of specifics of the land for example. Because I think that what we would like to see is specific uses and areas that minimize impact for many reasons. Um and then if they're closer where they're impacting neighbors be they commercial or residential then we would layer on all of those things because of sight and noise etc. So that's where I'm just trying to make sure that I understand what we're approving and what we're at.

Sure. So this this is essentially like the the bare minimum of what would be applied in that district and then as the rezoning process takes place we'll have those additional conversations on what what's appropriate and and hopefully by then it's a use that we've developed the standards for like you said. So like we can say like okay well typically we want this type of cladding or wall materials or design standards on your building but we understand you're going to be 2000 ft away from the nearest right of way or something like that. And so that might be amended during the zoning condition cuz that that would be the proper place to do that.

Okay.

Yeah. You're welcome.

Rochelle I have a question with the B3.

Mhm.

Um I'm seeing a lot of overlap between B1 and B2.

Can I ask what for like an example what kind of project would would be a B3?

Yeah. So there's there's actually one we'll talk about shortly as part of these amendment these amendments that are coming before you today. One one we have before you that we're going to talk about is like a food truck court. So essentially like a kind of auto like kind of small area that could be like a restaurant or things like that but the food truck court is not as current use as permitted and there's certain issues with amending state law right now with taking away or adding uses and so we thought the cleanest way would maybe to move towards this kind of transitional where they kind of meets intensity slash neighborhood residents and kind of have these little in between things that kind of are uses that meet the need and kind of desire. I don't know if you drive around there's food trucks everywhere. It's a really popular thing and we were looking to make a use that kind of encapsulates high quality standards and development for that type of use. So the food truck is the one we'll talk about shortly, but that was the the one we're considering right now. And there probably be additional ones that fit that mold or what could go there. Um but most recently, the ones we've had conversations around are something like the food truck court.

And also, um going back to the land use map, we currently do not have any HI.

Mhm. Yeah.

map. So, the developer would have to go through zoning, correct?

Correct.

Does that same um rule apply to the B3?

It does at this time. It would.

have any B3.

There's no B3. This doesn't establish any new B3 zoning district right now, so they would have to go through the rezoning process as well. Um and then there may be additional conversation during the update to the peak plan about where there these areas might be appropriate moving forward. And there may be some direction or information provided there, too. I I can't speak to that cuz I'm not part of that process, but if this were to be approved and that was the direction they were given, they could explore that as well.

Bruce, I think um you you may have answered the question, and it's because of the state. But just to dig in a little bit further, uh two questions. And I think Sarah touched on this a little bit as well. Do you have a land use orientation in

mind that would align with I mean, we know industrial is industrial on the land use plan, but something that aligns with B3. Is there something that um if we see that on the land use plan, we think, "Oh, B3 would be a good fit here." Or is that just something that's still being figured out?

Something we're still figuring out. And I think as uh we see new development and businesses come in, especially with as Verrado keeps moving and growing and things like that, and they'll bring businesses to the surrounding area, um we'll see more opportunities probably to implement new uses in the B3 district. But right now, like I said, the one we were considering that might be appropriate would would potentially be the food truck court.

Okay. And then the other question is um I mean, I I I I understand the intent of this, but I think virtually every zoning case that this board sees is comes with use conditions. So, if there's a request for B1 zoning, not all it's never straight B1 zoning. It's B1 zoning and we've picked out these 15 uses that would fall into this. So, I guess my question is what's the point of the additional zoning district if all of our zoning rezonings are customized already?

Um part of it is that there there one is no existing zoning of this for the B3 or the heavy industrial right now, so it gives us the opportunity to have very select uses in there. Um there's also the there's a possibility that if we were to add a use to an existing zoning district, if we're not very mindful or thoughtful and we don't consider all the possible implications that we add standards that we can't go back and amend right away because of the state law and things like that. So, um and that cuz it would affect multiple businesses and things that are already part of B1, B2, and the other zoning districts themselves. So, this gives us a kind of a clean slate to start um fresh with these new zoning districts and to make sure that we're working really hard to get the standards right. And as you said, most almost every zoning district comes before you as a conditional zoning with those additional things, and that won't change at all. It's just we have to have these uh districts established for both um the base zoning district itself, so it can come back in as a conditional zoning

district as well.

And I just would also like to add that there are some properties zoned B1 or B2 with no zoning conditions, just straight out. So, we have to be very mindful when we're adding uses as as Bruce explained.

Yeah.

Bruce, just going back to the food truck project. Um like right now currently the corner of um Jenks and 64, you've got like five food trucks there. Yeah. So, how would that work in with this B3? Would B3 be like legalized?

So, they wouldn't be B3 they wouldn't become B3. They would have to go through the rezoning process to become B3. So, they would be um potentially operating uh out of compliance with what's permitted. Right now, we also don't uh currently uh regulate or enforce the the the food truck court rules and standards. Right now, a lot of it's done through the police, at least the permitting process is. And so, this gives us an opportunity to be like, "Okay, so maybe they have one or two." But right now, like those situations, you have five or six food trucks and you're losing parking, there's safety issues, and there's all these other things, and it's maybe contributing to taking away from some of the established businesses and rooftops that we have as well that are already on this site. So, it what doesn't turn any It doesn't turn anyone into a B3. Um we're still going to encourage people to to limit the number of food trucks that to comply with what the current state and rules are. But we this would give us the opportunity to have a higher development for places where food trucks to come and operate their businesses in a safe way. But well, we can talk about that, too, more as we get to the food trucks. There's a lot of standards with the food truck court that may may highlight why we want that versus what they're doing right now.

I have a question. Um on the use tables,

Yes, sir.

um I noticed that uh there seemed to be some uses that weren't in the heavy industrial that could be heavy industrial. Was that on purpose? Like I'll just throw them out there randomly, concrete plant or an industrial service, sanitary landfill.

Was there a specific reason why they weren't permitted or at least by special use?

Um we we may consider adding those in the future, just at this time as we're moving forward with this process, uh we did not elect to add those at the time. But there is an opportunity that we could potentially add in the future.

Okay. I mean, a lot of them were listed in light industrial, and some of them seemed more appropriate for heavy industrial.

Okay. And we with SB 382, we also can't remove them. So, it All we can do really is add them to the heavy industrial. So, in the future, you know, we may we may move you towards recommending during the re pre-app process and things like that that this we feel this your particular project may fit more in heavy industrial and we'll go that process.

Okay. I have another question. 9.2.2 the massing It it says that the light industrial and heavy industrial are um doesn't apply. The massing standard, right? For 9.2.2 e 1, I guess.

Uh for buildings over 120,000

Okay, for and then

within a national North Carolina certified site and yeah, and and within those districts, that's correct. Yes.

Okay, how does that correlate to I'm sorry. I'm trying to find them at the same time. Does that have any correlation with the exterior wall cladding? Wait. And uh 9.3.3g Yes. Yeah, so it's it's it's such a good

actually repeating design patterns.

Yeah, so that does say that they would be exempt from like the wall cladding and things like that, but through it probably still, depending on the type of the project, would have to apply uh addition any additional types of design standards or through the conditional zoning process have to apply those that are coming through. Our goal was really to to make sure that these were um just uh kept the continuity to go along with the the whatever was permitted in the light industrial as well.

Okay.

Do Do we want to require them to have the the same exterior wall cladding as light industrial or do we want it to be a little more generic? I mean, these heavy industrial to me seems like places that are going to be pretty remote, pretty out of sight. Um Is that Is that I mean, I guess that's the desire of the town. I just was curious about that. Cuz that that is more costly when you have to put the the wall cladding for heavy industrial use.

I So, I would just add that in this section, light industrial and proposed heavy industrial are exempt they're more limited. Um because the standard is all exterior walls visible from parking lot or public right-of-way in any zoning district except LI. And heavy and and heavy industrial shall be clad with the same material. So, essentially your front wall that may face the road, you may want the front of your building to look nice, but the back and the sides don't have to have the same um material on all four sides.

I got you. I guess I'm at 9.3.5 A cuz it does say the predominant exterior building material shall be high quality material including brick, wood, stack stone, other native stone, tinted textured concrete masonry units. And shall be tinted textured or painted. Um So, my question is I guess you couldn't come here if you're developing a large steel building, right? You couldn't put that here.

No, I at this point metal metal is not permitted, yeah.

I was just curious. I mean heavy industrial to me seems something so out of sight, but it's going to be a lot more costly to do some of these things, okay. Thanks.

So, I would just say just because of our the constraints with the state law, it's safer for us to allow those types of um um type of relief through a zoning condition. Because if we put it in the ordinance, we can never change back to be

Thanks. Thanks.

Right, if there are no other questions for the first amendment, we can move on to the second. Yeah.

I just have one question. Uh do you does staff anticipate any use restrictions they're looking to add in the B3 district that uh not currently reflected in the as of now or no?

Yeah, later on in the evening we'll have the the food truck court amendment which would be the only use that we're proposing. Well, that's not a non-existing use right now in part of the B3, yeah.

Okay.

Yeah.

Thank you.

You're welcome. Um so the second amendment we have before you today um amends sections articles 4 uh 8 and others to allow for detention centers, jail, prisons, or concentration facilities um within the HI heavy industrial zoning districts. We'll go over some of this information now. So you can see that we're up here proposing to amend the the use table in 4.2.2 um to allow the detention center, jail, prison, or correctional facility only in the heavy industrial district. Um it's a So this would be classified any facility, building, or portion thereof used for the detention, confinement, or custody, or supervision of individuals under the authority of a government entity, court, or law enforcement agency, or their authorized agents. This includes but is not limited to prisons, jails, detention centers, holding facilities, and any other similar use where individuals are involuntarily housed or restricted in movement. Um we've added supplemental standards um for these. So under 4.2.4.4.2 um detention centers, jails, prisons, and correctional facilities one the site shall be a minimum of 10 acres. The site uh will be located with a minimum of 1/4 mile or 1,320 ft away from any public or private school, daycare, place of worship, or any property zoned or used for residential purposes. And that'll be required to have a 60-ft type A which is the opaque buffer uh shall be required around the perimeter of the site including along public streets. Um we had to amend the uh

the buffer which buffer classes would fall into. So this would fall under this class six which is our our more intense uh use uses list there. So that would be under that one. And uh those are those are the amendments we're proposing for this at this time. If you have any questions, we're happy to try and answer those for you now, too.

Under Quick question under 4.4.2,

Yeah.

was there any question brought up about lighting? If you're looking at a detention center, jail, or prison, I would think that the proximity to neighborhoods, even though 1,320 ft, that lighting might be an issue for the existing property surrounding there.

From my From my understanding and um uh Director Kinner or Assistant Director Bonte can elaborate more is that um most likely if these are these are you know, not-for-profit prisons, if they're government facilities or things like that, they have a lot of exemptions from some of the standards that we have. So, the halfing the distance is a kind of an attempt to say if they didn't have to follow our lighting ordinances or requirements that we have now for the cutoff lighting or things like that, that that would give some relief or distance.

Okay.

Yeah.

I could see where lighting would be a concern, security lighting.

Mhm.

Yeah, I mean, I want I want the lighting to be there, but I'm also concerned about the neighbors that I mean, I I know based on my farm, I know exactly how far 1,320 ft is, and it's not a tremendously long part. It's not a long ways away from my house, so. Especially Especially if you look at the topography.

Oh, that's that's fair, yeah.

Question. Um what was it categorized under before? Before it being in HI?

Um this this type of use wasn't wasn't classified in the UDO. There was no prison, jail, or detention.

any of this? Okay.

Does the current UDO it allows the

planning staff to give discretion to uses otherwise not listed within the UDO.

It allows the planning director to make an an interpretation on the type of use if there's a corresponding use that it's similar to. Um, in this case when we went through conversations, we didn't feel that prison detention center or or correctional facility had any kind of comparable use. No.

My child would argue that school is a comparable use.

That's what she We've all We were all there at one point, right?

I worked on a detention center project before, but it was in the middle of the city.

Sure.

We had tunnels underground, so that was different. I mean, this in Apex, I'm trying to picture this. Um, and I'm I am concerned about the distance, the minimum distance.

Yeah, I mean, you see something like Central Prison, and once upon a time that probably was remote. But then everything else happens around it, and

when I was in school.

Not when Jeff was in school. Yeah.

I mean, prison looks very different. Um, the uses is very different from a detention center.

True. Yeah. From my understanding, there's there's not a particular developer, anyone looking at property in Apex. It's just kind of I think that this was requested by by pro tem Mr. Mahaffey to to look into and provide this. And so, it was really just kind of looking at what's going around in the nation and making sure that we were prepared as far as the code standpoint on at least having some direction and things like that.

Do you have any other questions for Bruce?

I'll I'll just ask this considering Mayor pro tem Mahaffey's in the room, and it was his proposal, can we ask him to speak on his opinion?

Sure.

I will say uh Mr. Mahaffey did not have any influence in drafting anything. He he's speaking on the intent of

but when

Uh yes, sir. I'm Ty Mahaffey, Arapahoe

Tom. Um what can I do for you?

Well, what What sort of brought this whole want for detention centers in Apex to light?

Uh

No pun intended.

It would be an ice detention facility being proposed in Cary without any rules on the books about where they can be used and Greensboro in February passing similar regulations around where uh detention centers can be located in their town preemptively before they're proposed. Um

Okay.

I'd point out there are no heavy industrial parcels in in Apex.

Okay. So, it's sort of based on what Cary has done in trying to get ahead of the curve.

Um I asked the question based on what I saw happening in Cary. There appeared to be a legally ambiguous situation and I asked staff, well, you know, what can we do in Apex to make this more clear. I didn't know I mean, until I saw the giraffe exactly how they wrote it up and with the zoning districts and whatnot. I'm not a planning guy. Uh but I that's that was my initiation. I was like, "Hey, what does this What does this mean for Apex looking at what's happening in neighboring jurisdictions?"

Well, that's good insight. Thank you very much.

All right. All right.

Thank you.

All right, we can move on to the third amendment if that's all right with everyone.

Um so, this is the food truck court amendment. We'll go over some of the standards and things that we're proposing. Again, this would be proposed to be only permitted in the new transitional business zoning district if council decides to approve that or you guys provide recommendation to move this forward. So, that means um amending the use table to have the food truck court listed on there. Um so, we are proposing this will actually be permitted in places like the B3, also the text flex, and some conditional zoning districts. Um the text flex because we have had instances where people are already bringing food trucks out there and things like that. So, if they want to operate operate as an accessory use, um, in compliance with the code, we want to

be able to have that opportunity for them in a place that makes sense. If it's on their site and they're providing and meeting all the standards that we have provided below. So, but we amended to 4.1.2, um, outside storage and sales. So, just as it states that no mobile food vendor, which is a term we'll use moving forward for the individual, um, trucks themselves, uh, shall be parked or visible from the public right-of-way except as shown on an approved site plan. So, like you said, you're driving past that that section of road, you might see them in different places. Maybe they're sometimes always in the same spot, but they could be different places in a in a random parking lot set up. Um, this process would require them to go through the site plan process where we have designated areas where like pads essentially where these are going to be parked and housed. We know exactly where they're going to be versus being able to park anywhere themselves. So, there might be a limit to how many someone can have on site based if they can meet the standards that are provided later on. So, just as a as a reference. Um, so, under use classifications, we classify what this is. So, it's an establishment where there are three or more mobile food vendors as defined in the Apex Town Code under section 1360, where they can operate simultaneously for the preparation and sale of food, beverages, in a ready-to-consume state, and where the design or principal method of operation consists of all of the following. So, in the form of a food truck, cart, trailer with a walk-up counter offering quick service, where orders are not taken at the customer's table, but at a window or counter of a licensed food truck, cart, trailer, or, um, where the where it also where the food is generally served in disposable wrappings or containers. Under B, the food truck court shall include a permanent structure on the site containing the use restaurant general, bar, nightclub, wine bar, or tap room, microbrewery or distillery. The intent here is sometimes, um, at least where I'm from there was this was popping up with food truck courts was you would have an empty lot and on Fridays and Saturdays it would be full and gone and people would go there and enjoy themselves, but sometimes during the week the food truck operators would pop all over the place and so it would

kind of mess up your street form. You would have like building everyday businesses in buildings and things like that and then you would just have kind of an empty rundown lot that were from all the driving and the traffic and things like this. So having a an established well highly quality high quality development food truck you drive by it's going to look the same every time you drive by. It's going to look well designed, it's going to be well built and hopefully well maintained by the operator itself as well. So that's just kind of by having a restaurant bar or another thing on site as well there's a potential that there's a use even when the food truck court is not in operation that doesn't contribute to just having an empty unused lot as well. Um see this use may include on site premise service and consumption of alcoholic beverages as a accessory or secondary use so the bar itself. Under supplemental standards there's going to be a long list of supplemental standards for a food truck court. As I mentioned it could also be an accessory use to such as commissary restaurants, bars and nightclubs, um tap rooms, microbreweries and distilleries as well. Um and that there shall be on site management to ensure safe and orderly operation of the food truck court during hours of operation. So it shall comply with the following. Again as listed it has to comply with a food truck court it shall comply with chapter 13 article 4 uh the transient mobile food vendors of the town of Apex's code of ordinances and all other applicable standards and regulations of the permit issuing county's environmental health and safety department. Uh the mobile food food vendors shall permit to have one sandwich board sign so we're just trying to limit the number of uh signs that could potentially block or get in the way of uh pedestrian movement on site and has to be adjacent to their designated location on site. The vendor shall be located in the areas designated for vending on the approved site plan, so like those paths we discussed. Um shall be located clearly defined and separated from all patron parking with fencing, decorative bollards, or planters in order to separate the food truck court from the parking and fencing shall not exceed 4 ft in height. So again, having some type of physical barrier that kind of breaks up the uses

so we're not feeling everyone's just in a parking lot or in a field or things like that, but there's actually a separation from where pedestrians and people are going to be able to park and then where they're going to go and have be able to enjoy the use on site. Uh the vendors shall maintain at least 10 ft of clearance around the entire perimeter of the vehicle, trailer, cart. This is a This was a safety recommendation that we received from other departments just given that a many many of these are operating gas, electric, and other types of um uh methods for cooking and powering. So it's just something that was recommended that they have that distance and clearance in order for safe, easy movement and that there's nothing stacked too close to each other. A food truck court shall be required to provide indoor and or outdoor seating. All designated seating and dining areas shall be shown on the approved site plan. Temporary enclosures, including but not limited to plastic sheeting, vinyl tarps, and tents shall be prohibited. So again, we want this to be high quality, we want this to be well designed. And we don't want them adding just tables randomly. We want to know how many tables they're going to have because um currently with restaurants, you know, how many people you're serving or able to serve kind of affects your parking requirements and things like that as well. So we just want to make sure that this is doesn't get out of control and that we're trying to account for everything as well. Uh bushels. All seating and dining areas shall comply with the approved site plan as we've already mentioned. Um it will be required to provide permanent restrooms on site. So having no porta-potties, no things like that, but actually having real restrooms available on site as well. Which would could be accomplished through the the existing what we're recommending the restaurant or bar to be on site as well, which could have restrooms that are available to those patrons of the food court. A permanent power source shall be provided to each mobile food vendor. Individual generators shall not be allowed. A temporary power pole made of wood or similar material shall not be permitted. Mobile food vendors shall not operate on site outside of the established operating hours of the food truck court. The site The site site shall utilize two shared dumpsters, one for trash and one for cardboard recycling, and that shall be located within a masonry dumpster

enclosure, which is similar to all other requirements for other uses within the town of Apex. Um there's some specific standards for inside or outside the downtown festival district. Um they shall not be located within 100 ft of residential zoning. Um outdoor live or recorded acoustic or amplified entertainment shall not be permitted on properties directly adjacent to any conforming single-family detached dwelling with no intervening right-of-way except when approved in accordance with the standards of a promotional event found in section 4.6 temporary uses and structures. And then some standards for within the downtown festival district shall not be located within 45 5 ft of a residential zoning district or property containing a conforming single-family detached dwelling, uh not including high-density multi-family or the MOR districts. And outdoor live or recording acoustic or amplified entertainment shall not be permitted on properties directly adjacent to any conforming single-family detached uh dwelling with no intervening right-of-way except when approved again within the standards of 4.6 temporary uses and structures. Mobile food vendors shall be required to store, transport, and dispose of all grease, wastewater, and wastewater to the commissary identified on their mobile food vendor permit issued by the applicable county department. How this works is that every uh mobile food truck vendor has a commissary that they're required to go to every day, at least once a day, for cleaning and storing and other food preparation and things like that. So, this is just saying that we don't want them dumping their grease and everything into a grease trap on site that they need to unless it's a commissary on site that they're approved for, they need to return to the commissary that they're permitted to through the permit process with the county. Um they again we had to update our landscaping buffering section so a food truck court would be under a class five um land use classes for for we can go back to the table and kind of see what that requires. Um for off-street parking, this is the off-street parking table. We have the food truck so two designated mobile food vendor stalls, two per designated mobile food vendor stalls,

and one per 50 square feet of indoor dining space devoted to public use. I on the below you can see the restaurant general is one per 50 square feet of floor space devoted to public use. So that's fairly similar to there for that. Um and then additionally under minimum bicycle parking, there's two spaces or one space per 50 motor vehicle parking spaces, whichever is greater. That's exactly the same as for restaurant general so not much is changing there. And that's the end of that proposed amendment. If there's any specific questions for that, I'm happy to try and answer those for you as well.

So I know this applies to food truck court designated area. Um does this change existing conditions where food trucks are rented by like schools or or communities for their gatherings?

Um no, it wouldn't change that. It's really we're trying to prevent um property owners allowing um five or six or more than three food trucks courts to just kind of be designated or set up in their parking lots. There still be the proper process to go I think for permitting and things like that to have a temporary event where you can have food truck courts and maybe things closed off or things like that. That's not the intent just to to limit temporary events, but um

So Bruce, I'm thinking of you know, we've named at least one existing food truck court. I'm thinking of another one on 55 with the requirement for restroom permanent restroom facilities. Is that something they would be grandfathered into not being required to do, or would they have to go back and meet these measures in this new zoning?

Because it's a new new use in a new district, they would have to do the rezoning process, which would make them have to opt into providing the restrooms and self-and-site because they're not a legally defined or legally non-conforming food truck court at this time. They're just having food trucks on their property, so we don't define them as illegally non-conforming, so they would have to get rezoned and bring it up to standards to have those bathrooms on site.

Okay. And then understanding that this is a new use and kind of triggered this creation of a new zoning district, I mean, could I'm trusting in the planning staff and

the people that have to implement this, but why not just make this a special use within an existing district? Or is that does that again create this trickle effect that uh gets out of hand?

Well, it it does cause cause some issues with them with amending previous zoning districts and having things that already amended in there. This gives us the opportunity. Speaking with legal, they felt this was one of the cleaner ways to apply the be able to pursue a food truck court in the town of Apex was by creating a new district to have that one, so it wouldn't directly interfere or go against the current state law. Um so, that was part of the recommendation we received from our legal staff.

I'll just say from the staff perspective and historically, special use permits are not fun. Um they go through the Board of Adjustment. The neighbors don't really get to come and speak to you all and to council about what they are concerned about. Um it it's just I would like to move away from special use permits, honestly. Like, they're tough. They're tough, and so um because the way we're setting this up, you cannot set up a food truck court without a rezoning. At least this way we they will get cited where the neighbors are kept in mind. So, I I think a special use permit would not be the way to go at all.

Yeah, that's great. That's great clarification. Thank you.

And for the future, just understanding how that process works a little more to to provide more detail. Um so, the in special use permits, it's like a quasi-judicial hearing and the there's the findings of fact that they're shown that they have to show that they meet all those in order to get approval. Um so, what happens is they will come in, they'll present that they're meeting all these findings of fact and if there's not someone who's like who can be documented as an expert to speak against that, you're the board is almost required to approve it if they're showing that they're able to meet all their findings of fact in that way. So, it kind of can create challenges if there is issues that we're not really able to address and that's why the conditional conditional zoning district is awesome.

You said you spoke to legal. Did you guys also consult land owners and maybe some of the business owners as well when you were developing the

I know there was conversations maybe with some property owners that have lots of food trucks on their site currently. I personally wasn't involved in any of those conversations. Um do you want to speak to any of that?

Yeah, so we did talk with three different property owners that historically have had uh more than one food truck and uh uh the gentleman that owned Mr. A's Beignets was actually very much opposed to us having this we actually had this ready like a year ago and he was opposed to it and so we were trying to work through issues. Um you know, to address his concerns. Um he's since sold the property and the new property owner has talked with us and we shared this document with them and to my knowledge they did not provide comments back.

I haven't seen anything.

So,

Are you talking about the 55 by

It's next to Compare Foods.

Yeah, okay. So, they didn't. Okay.

So, the people that own it currently have expressed interest in doing a permanent food truck court there and we shared with them what our ordinance would be and they didn't provide feedback. So, we don't know if they're for it or opposed to it, interested in it. We we just don't know. We've also had other folks talk to us in the past about potentially having a food truck court at Beaver Creek Crossings where there's some properties that are not developed yet. And so, we feel like we need something in our ordinance to address it because we've not had a way to deal with folks that want to set up a permanent business. Currently, food trucks are uh handled through the town code uh as temporary uses through the town code. They're they're technically not even temporary uses, they're transient vendors. That's what technically they are. Um so,

um yeah, and I forget I I I don't remember who it was. Somebody uh visited um I can't think of the Canopener, I think it's the name of it in Durham. They've got a food truck court up there and so, uh we were using some of that information, but that must have been before Bruce's time and I can't remember which planner worked on that, but

Yeah, I haven't had the opportunity to visit, but I am I'm familiar with the Canopener and there was a a new I think Fayetteville also also in the last 2 years has passed a food truck court ordinance as well trying to like really encourage more food trucks, but also just have that permanent kind of business set up there.

So, there hasn't been someone specific that's come and said

Oh, we've had people come and talk to Oh, yes, absolutely, more than one. They just haven't pulled the trigger. They could have come and propose their own UDO amendment.

Uh-huh.

But, no one has done that.

Okay. So, we're taking a stand of let's get ahead of this while

Yes, we're trying to get ahead of it.

Okay. Cuz just thinking about that one on 55 by Apex Middle, it doesn't seem like it would be able to meet all of these standards with the 10-ft buffer and the three and I mean, that's a small lot right there. It already looks like one of them's encroaching in on the Compare Foods parking lot anyway, the one that's more permanent, and the others do seem to be pretty transient as they're going back and forth.

Mhm.

So, to be able to put And isn't there residential right there by the school, too?

There's a historic house.

Yeah. Mhm. Okay.

Yeah.

Mhm. Okay.

So, just out of curiosity, the current vendors, do they renew annually or once they're approved?

It goes through the police department and I I think it's

I think it's yearly.

annually, but I'm not 100% sure. Yeah, yearly.

Cuz I guess what I'm thinking is if we approve this and as they're as they build out, as they renew, are we guiding them to wherever these new facilities are?

Um I mean, no. The transient vendors can continue to be transient. They might need to be more transient than they've been cuz they just tend to park and don't ever go anywhere. They're They're supposed to be moving around.

Um but the ordinance doesn't prohibit one or two from being on any retail property. So, you're not going to see the food trucks go away. They're going to stay where they are. It's just that if someone wants to do three or more and make it a permanent use, they would have to meet the standards.

So, that was my question. So, the triggers on three or more. So, two still Okay.

And what what defines a permanent use?

So, what the problem you're having maybe with the local food truck issue right now is that they'll they'll park and they'll stay there and they won't move their truck for weeks at a time or whatever and essentially they're operating as a permanent business versus actually being transient and moving around. And so, yeah.

Was that Is that defined in here what transient means?

No, we we don't use the word transient in the UDO.

That's handled by town code and we we're not changing anything about town code. It may be that police may propose something someday or town council may want to change it, but we're not proposing anything with town code. We don't enforce that. We're just saying once you get to three, you're permanent.

So, you might know where I'm going with this.

I don't.

Well, I'm sorry. Well, with with our peak festival, we've got nine food truck vendors.

Oh, no. No.

And so, to but single day, it's within

Yeah. No, it's clearly temp- it's clearly a temporary It's a festival. It's not a business.

Would I could I possibly recommend that we add some language that festivals would be exempt from this?

Yes. It was

It's in there.

You think it's in there?

Oh, it is? Okay.

I think the only question I have, and it's uh speculative, completely, is just trying to be mindful of how expensive it is to own and operate a existing restaurant and how challenging it is when you do and don't have parking and the fact that most restaurants nationally are are takeout. Um if you go back and look at the reports that they do. And so, just wanting to encourage innovation, maybe small businesses, and just keeping that in mind, but I felt

better when you said that it was three it was triggered at three. Um because I can see sometimes where they might need like they're trying to get it going, and then I know that that um as I talked to different um property owners, they that's who you want to not poach, but that's who you want to try to attract to a a a permanent uh situation. Someone who's gotten a following. And I know that it's hard to get a following if you're constantly moving. Right. And so, it's just sort of like this catch-22, and I just want to be mindful of um still allowing for that as appropriate um for that innovation, um for those small businesses to kind of get going because as we all know, restaurants turn over unfortunately quite a bit.

Yeah.

And I think we can't it's nothing we can enforce the UDO, but the intent would be to, you know, talk to the developer and hopefully have they come up with a system where they're not they have different vendors come in as they're moving around. Different transient vendors can come in and use the pads that are approved and developed on site through the town's code to be able to have variety, to be able to have a hub where people come and can appreciate and experience these local vendors as they're trying to get off the ground and get started as well. So, there'll be there'll be opportunities for that hopefully through through the business aspect of it, but

And if we had a business like um I think Durham is the one that has it's called a winery, but it's not really winery, right? And they have several. I know they have more than three. Um it's huge property, so different, right? And definitely not uh adjacent directly to residential, so different in that regard. But they are programmed that way because they don't do food service on site and a way to keep prices down was to bring in these food trucks. So, I just want to make sure that if there's future uses that we're thinking about that too. When you start providing um greenery around and tent all of this, it really adds up the cost and then it's not and then and then then it's hard to get that business going. So, I guess I'm just trying to manage those two things in my head is where I'm thinking.

Sure. That's completely fair.

I have a I have a question. So, if you came in and got site plan approval for one of these food truck courts

um and it identified seating and planters things like that um if the trucks came out only on the weekends and then left on weekdays, is there anything in here that would require them to pick up all the seating and stuff or would it just remain out during the week at the court until the trucks came back? Um personally, I'm not a big fan of this. I don't like food food truck courts.

Okay.

Uh I like the one in Durham because it's it's kind of on its own property, but if it's something publicly facing on 55, we got a whole bunch of trucks and a bunch of tables and chairs that this doesn't identify whether plastic chairs or fancy chairs or whatever it is. So, I'm just curious if this ends up being long-term like clutter that sits around or is it how how are we going to be able to force things like this if it's got a site plan approval?

I think the intent is to have like, you know, can see something similar to outdoor seating. So, like, you know, high quality chairs, benches, things like that, picnic tables that are made of high quality, nothing plastic, no folding chairs, no folding tables, or things of that nature.

Okay.

So, like, you know, actually part of the permanent investment there.

Yeah. But, if language if

clear here.

If language needs to be added to to articulate that.

It's in the outdoor sales section of the UDO.

Okay.

So, we require all outdoor seating to be shown on a site plan, and we review the site plan. We have them give us details for the furniture the street furniture. It's the type of furniture you see out on you know, the benches and the tables that are permanent and heavy, so people that people can't pick them up and take them with them.

Okay.

Um So, that's already in our ordinance. That's for every restaurant. They can't just have a card table with some folding chairs out there. They have to put permanent.

Yeah, it applies to every use that has outdoor seating.

Okay.

I also wanted to add that the health department also has standards that we don't enforce for food trucks that they're supposed to leave and go to a commissary or designated place to um get fresh flu you know, fresh water in and empty their um waste water um on a regular basis. They're the they're

not supposed to sit for days on end in the same spot. Unfortunately, the health department is limited in their enforcement staff that they can go around for all of Wake County. Um so, just keep that in mind as well.

Do we have any of those kinds of uses that are um that you can do inside of our inside Apex? I know they do in Wake County commissaries, like you could go like a food prep kitchen. You know what I mean? Where they could go and and store things and then do all the things that you're talking about.

commissary, at least there was one at 540 Flex on Olive Chapel Road, and there's other um commissaries in in the area, and restaurants can be used as a commissary um as well, or or their food prep kitchen, but I just wanted to point that out.

Are there any requirements in here that forces the trucks to be parked on a hard surface or does it or does it or can they park on any part of the lot?

No, they they they'll be required to be parked on a a paved surface that's shown on the on the site plan.

Okay.

Any other questions?

So, those are the three amendments we have for you in the under new business here today. So, if you guys would like to discuss or have any further questions, um we appreciate your feedback and are providing a recommendation if you feel so.

Thank you, Bruce.

Thank you.

Bring it back to the board for discussion, possible motion.

So, um I like the idea of having a designated area for food truck court, food food truck Yeah. Court. Um I see a lot of potential, especially like, you know,

for the area campus with the Wake Tech coming in and, you know, it's it could be very attractive. Um but I want to be sensitive to the food truckers and don't want to dive too much into their means and methods cuz I feel like, you know, they've been in on it and there's a high turnover with the food trucks. Um I know my favorite pastries food truck disappeared after a year um on 55. Um so, I I'm on the fence about it. I'd like to hear your thoughts.

I think as long as it stays one or two, right? And you have the rotation. This doesn't limit existing operations. This just is addressing the operations that have become more permanent fixtures where the transient nature has been lost. So, I but I I mean I agree with you. It's um we have a lot of really great trucks around town.

And the beauty of food food trucks is they're they're nomadic, right? That's that's the beauty of it. Um one week you see, you know, one location you see one of them and another location you see another another one. Um Yeah. But having um like to me right now, right now this moment, um having a designated B3 zoning, I'm on the fence about that, too.

I'd like to go ahead and make a motion to approve amendment number two adding detention facilities to the UDO. Or do we need to do these in order because of the establishment of the HI district? Yep.

HI district would have to come first before we can permit the

detention center.

Okay, so I'm not going to make that motion yet until we have a discussion about HI being done.

So, that would be motion first.

Before I can do two. Yep.

Or three.

Okay, so we're on amendment number one. Which uh I guess I'd like to start off with is there on amendment number one is there any time constraint to get this one done before next month? And the reason I ask that is is is for time for for members to evaluate this and and maybe vote on it next month. It's a big one and if there's a lot of information in here and to give uh the community a whole time to to to to swap that. My main question is is it is there a is there a rush to get this one done tonight? Can we propose to possibly

table it?

Table this one till June?

Um we received a request that the council would like to have this before them and at the second meeting in May. So, that is why we we brought it to you.

Yes. Yes.

I mean, I came into this very hesitant about this and then the explanations that you provided have been very clear. Um I feel like I understand the purpose of this, the intent. I understand how the town increasingly has its hands tied by the state and what it can and can't do. Agreeing with Mark's comments on, you know, why are the uses in heavy industrial so light at this point. I understand that. Well, you know, I think that the way this is laid out, we are going to see a lot more requests in the future to amend the zoning ordinance to include additional uses. Um so, I

And each one of those will have to come before you as well at that time.

Right. So, that's I'm just lending my perspective on how feel more comfortable with it now.

They did a They did They did a well job with the presentation. Any other comments on the new business? On amendment number one.

I I just have a maybe it's a technical question. I have the staff report, but it's not broken up into three amendments like the presentation was. How do you How are you able to follow the amendments? Maybe I'm in the wrong place on my

The staff report it might So, instead of amendment one, two, and three, I think it's broken it's broken down into section like section one, section two, section three. And and that's the intent. I apologize for the the terminology being slightly different. Yeah.

I'm the newbie here. It's okay.

I think I I read them before and was, you know, trying to understand and think about I understand why the detention center is coming up. I understand um the want and use of trying to manage um small business owners that are already here and permanent statuses when things were supposed to be transitory. So, I I thought that a lot of the clarity that I read and then it was confirmed when um when we were speaking. Sometimes I'm asking about intent, but that may be beyond my purview. Maybe I'm not supposed to ask about what the intent is. I just want to make sure that we're engaging as much of our community as possible. We're residents, we're business owners, um we're patrons at these um some of these businesses. So, I I liked the clarity and I understood the need for it and I was intending to vote yes for it.

Thank you.

Mhm.

Anybody else? Is that a motion, Christie?

That's a motion. To Oh, gosh. I have to say the whole thing.

Yes. Yeah, there you go.

Sorry. Um my

For number one.

Thank you. I vote I put forward a motion to approve item number one regarding amendment to the UDO. Say it like that?

The three amendments or the first amendment?

Just the first one.

Just the first.

Okay, thanks.

Thank you.

Got a Got a motion? Got a second?

I'll second.

Got a second from Mark. All in favor say I.

I.

All opposed? Motion carried. We'll move on to amendment Oh, I'm sorry. Did I not see something?

amendment. It's just adding the B3 and HI zoning districts. Yeah, I had it in the UDO. I'll fill out my form.

Look at that. We have an approval from Sarah. And we will move forward with uh amendment number two.

Okay, since I tried to jump ahead

Yeah, yeah.

get back in line.

There you go.

I would like to make a motion to approve the amendment to add detention center, jail, prison, correctional facility to the UDO, but with a recommendation that we increase the buffer from 1320 to 1620. Add a football field.

So, that would be the the distance it has to be separated. Okay, perfect. The buffer itself would still be that 60-foot buffer.

Yeah, I'm sorry.

No, you're okay.

Distance for the from the for the facility, not Buffer is a different term.

We have a motion from Alyssa.

I'll second that one.

Got a second from Mr. Hastings. That I'll assume that is including the 1600 ft.

That's correct. Including additional buffer.

We have a motion and a second. All in favor say I.

I.

All opposed? Motion carried. Now, we'll move on to amendment number three. Food truck.

Food truck court, right?

Food truck court, yes.

Food truck court.

Can I squeeze one more question?

Absolutely.

Is So, when this goes to town council and if they approve it, what time frame do the people that are existing there have before enforceability starts?

So, I believe we've already been in conversations with some of the sites that have this. Again, we will be recommending that when when they're out of compliance with how many are at site and how that they have not moved in some time. I think we'll track that start tracking that. We'll we'll continue to have communication that this is what's permitted, this is what's allowed, and we'll encourage them to move forward in that process. Um outside of that, I've I've not had conversations directly with our code enforcement staff on exactly how they'll they'll work on that, but I believe conversation is the is the first thing that'll happen. encouraging you.

Building off of Jeff's question, if they decide to skirt the rules because they have two trucks in the morning who then go back to the commissary and then two new ones come in that are of different owners, that's allowable.

That's perfectly fine.

It's a different owner. It's just replacing, so you can just have a continuous

the number we're concerned about, yeah. And then that they're leaving with what they're supposed to leave at least once a day, yeah.

Okay. Thank you.

You're welcome.

Well, in that case, I'll make a motion to approve amendment three.

Got a motion to approve, Mr. Hastings. Have a second?

I'll second that.

Have a second from Mary. All in favor, say I.

I.

All that oppose?

Nay.

Nay from Mr. Mark.

Me.

Op and Sarah.

This is the B3. No, this

No, this is item three, trucks.

Two trucks to B3. So, I guess by nature of opposing B3, I oppose.

Yes.

So, an accessory accessory to restaurants and and facilities and

From my comments before. Thank you. So, do I have to fill out two forms?

Since you separated the votes on the amendments, yes, you have to fill out two forms and Mark, just there should be a form on your desktop called written um

Okay.

reasons for vote.

Okay. 7-2.

What's that?

Approved 7-2.

7-2-2.

Oh, 7-2-2.

Yes. It was not It was not unanimous.

Oh, it was not unanimous. Okay. But it did The motion did carry.

It carried 7-2.

7-2. You got it. So, that moves us into old business, item number one, which is Bruce again.

So, this item came before you previously at another planning board. This is a We discussed this before. This is about uh amending the decision-making bodies for the Environmental Advisory Board to consider condition number five, how does it impact the environmental uh aspect of the site itself. Uh this went to Town Council. Council uh did not hear it at the time of the public hearing, but asked it to be sent back to you to have further conversations on kind of what you'd like to see. Um, so to tenants today, we do have a couple members of the Environmental Advisory Board that are here, and then also we do have uh Mayor Pro Tem Mahaffey here to speak to you directly about the situation. Um, no no revisions have been made at this time. So, they're just continuing to have a conversation about what was presented to you the previous month. I will leave the wording up here for you as you have conversations. Uh Mr. Mahaffey, would you like to come speak to the board?

Yes.

Thank you.

Okay. Hello again, everybody. And I just want you to know, we love those dissenting notes. We actually read them. It's the first thing we see. Oh, it was 7-1. Let's go and find that dissenting form. So, it actually is is quite useful to hear what's going on. Um, but yes, as you heard, uh the Town Council requested that it be referred back to you guys, partially so we could have this conversation. You know, the intention was I would come, the EAB would come, and we could maybe fill in some of the gaps um as to as to what's going on. So,

I of course, Mayor Pro Tem Terry Mahaffey, I'm joined here uh by John Garrison and uh Suzanne Mason who are former chairs of the EAB. Uh the current chair and vice chair couldn't make it tonight, so we have some experience here to talk about it. And it is with a uh I would say deep respect for the role that you all play uh in helping shape Apex, uh our regulations, the development around here, um that I appear before you today to hopefully clear up some uh misunderstandings or or uh lack of information about the origin, purpose, uh and the interpretation of what this UDO amendment was meant to do and what it's here for. So, just kind of get right to it. Um to answer some questions I've heard uh through the through the notes, and we may have a discussion after that. Um it is correct that currently the EAB uh technically is voting on approving the recommendations uh to a project. Uh there are several problems with this that that have come up over the years. Um the first of which is is kind of obvious is the EAB is a little frustrated, maybe you'll hear that later, that they don't get feedback from the developers about what exactly happens with that. They sort of approve it, and it goes out there, and then, you know, they move on. And uh they'd like to to sort of have a more clear role as to what's going on. Um the recommendations often in practice uh seem to carry very little weight. And um what I see at the council is tends to be what you'd expect where some of the easier ones tend to be adopted universally, some of the more expensive ones tend to never be adopted, and that's sort of a format that we we follow through. Uh a bigger issue is the public generally uh believes that the EAB is voting on the project. And we saw this last year with a um with the data center project is is uh they voted to approve the recommendations, and um you know, that caused some stir in the press, and I think some uh unfair, you know, criticism of of the EAB and exactly what they were doing through that lack. So, I just throw that out there that that that's the perception of what's going on. And I can attest to you that the uh current arrangement doesn't really meet

with the original intention of the EAB. So, when I was appointed as a liaison to the EAB last November, I saw these issues. I spoke with staff. We had a meeting. I spoke with the chair and the vice chair about, you know, what we could do to try to increase the salience of the EAB. Um, during those discussions, I'll admit I thought it was kind of just a matter of changing the wording of the motion to maybe talk more directly about the project and and speak directly to the appropriateness of what they were doing. Um, but lawyers got involved, you know, and and here we are. So, talking about a change in the actual regulations. Um, some other points that I heard, um, I want to assure you that everyone involved here is aware that the EAB is exclusively considering the environmental considerations. And in the in the amendment, you know, it speaks, you know, purely on section 2335 F5, uh, specifically about minimizing environmental impact. So, that's the understanding, is they are just in that very narrow lane. And a recommendation to approve or denial, in my mind, I think in everyone's mind, isn't speaking to the other standards of on a project. It is entirely possible that they'd recommend denial and they'd still say, "Hey, it's great it does this affordable housing stuff or meets this need." Um, or likewise, you know, if they recommend approval, there could be other failings in the legislative considerations that would cause a denial. So, that understanding is there. Um, I think there's some confusion about whether this requires another meeting. I don't think the UDO amendment directly speaks to that. I don't think that's necessarily required. It could be. Um, but it it could just be as simple as at the follow-up meeting after they initially recommend the conditions, they get a report from an email from the project to say, "Hey, you know, you recommended conditions 1 through 10. Uh, you know, we agreed with 1 through 9." And then the EAB would then, you know deliberate on on whether that's you know sufficient or not or maybe the

developer will grade all of them and they'll you know vote accordingly. Uh the developer may choose to come and speak. That's you know up to the EAB separately from the the amendment itself which is just changing um the concept of of what they're voting on. I also wanted to to address although I am the EAB liaison, I don't participate in the deliberations of the EAB um and I don't vote on any matters in the EAB. Uh there is a section on the agenda for council updates where I try to tell the board uh what happened with some of the topics that came before council and answer any questions around there. Uh but typically for the the projects I don't think I've I've said too many words. Um I can't think of any but you know if that is an issue and it hadn't occurred to me it might be, I'm happy to consult with town legal staff about how that arrangement would look like going forward. Uh ultimately, I want to make it clear it's the desire uh for us to empower all of our boards. Uh including the planning board, including the EAB, our transit board, our whatever you want. And uh we value our residents who are giving their time, their expertise, and their knowledge uh and their service on our boards. And uh we want them to know that their opinions are valued and that their opinions are important and we take them seriously. Uh and as evidence of that, you know, I'm here today and you know, not just ignoring what you guys said. I want to talk about it. So uh I also want to address that I I do understand the concerns from the development community. They're probably thinking uh wow, this is you know another board I got to you know go before and get a yes from. Um I I don't deny that. In fact, that's that's the point. Um so I'll I'll admit that and it's always been the point actually of the EAB. Um I do want to however maybe point to the bright side that um this can be an advantage to a project. Uh today we often see developers uh and projects come before council and get kind of beat over the head at the last second about their buffers or their trees or the sufficiency in general of their environmental conditions of their project and will complain about ponds or whatever it is. Um

I would say with this change, the an EAB approval explicit, clear, you know, could be used sort of as an affirmative defense against those sort of discussions at the council. You know, they could be like, you know, what are you talking about, Terry? I already got the sign-off from your board that you appointed and they said it was fine. So, why are you asking me to save more trees when they said whatever. Uh that's kind of the intention is to move those conversations uh earlier in the process where there's more time for the uh you know, the property owners proposing the project to consider them and um you know, reject them, understand why or or accept them and go back and and do the words. Uh the feedback that we hear often is by the time it comes to council, it's very last second and it's hard to make significant changes without delaying the meeting and everyone has to come back again and it's a lot of drama. So, the intention is to move those discussions earlier and then to uh follow and um you know, listen to the advice of our residents who volunteered to serve on this board and provide their expertise uh on the matter. So, uh that's all I got. Um with that I'm happy to answer your questions and we also have uh Suzanne and and John here uh who are currently on the EAB. If they'd like to say anything or or ask any questions of them, happy to chat. So.

Any questions for Terry?

I have one.

Yes.

Um if we have requirements on trees and things, why don't we just make it very clear and just say this is it and then not have this because as a business who's trying to come in and you're operating and you're getting this approval and then 2 years later you're over here getting this approval and members are coming on and off and they have different opinions, but the rules are this. This is the tree save. This is the buffer. These are the exterior requirements that you have. That is the frustration of the development community. It is not that they don't want They just don't want it to change. And so, why don't we just say what we want and then not approve it if we don't want to.

We are trying, actually. We have UDO amendments that are coming from uh the

EAB that was a draft was given to council last work session. I think it'll probably be coming to you guys pretty soon along those lines around some new tree regulations. So, it's something that we've we've pushed for a while. Legally confusing what can and can't be done around that area, and I think that's where sometimes things get pushed to the uh you know, the conditional zoning process to to look at the site and see what needs to be preserved or not. Uh but to your point, um I do value that certainty, and we we are indeed looking forward to uh to proposing some amendments around tree preservation, canopy tree preservation, heritage tree preservation, and and some other stuff coming out of the committee. I agree.

I think I believe one of our concerns last time why we unanimously voted it down was just the the way it was presented was the power that would be given to that board, and we have a lot of different boards in the town.

Mhm.

And it just seemed even with what you were saying today, presented by EAB, goes to the developers, developers decide say they want to do nine out of 10, but then it goes back to the EAB, you know, and then they get to review that again. And then perhaps make more recommendations. Wasn't that a concern last time? It was There was a lot of time going into this, and but also I would just

And based on what's required to have versus a nice to have or recommended to have.

Right, like

And that and I mean I I go back to affordable. We just recently had um a developer builder come and say, "Well, we only submitted five." And the reason is we didn't do 10 is because we were in front of you two, three years ago and we have at that time it was five, so that equaled two homes for them. So, they had a standing home and no buyer. And so, my concern is like, okay, we're going to do another thing that we haven't got a process for that is clear and everybody who has to come before us understands exactly what they have to do and then

they can make that decision in their pro forma before they ever come before us. Can I do this or can I not do this? And I think when we also say we want affordable, we have to remember that those are both sides, right? We have to manage both sides of that.

Okay. Uh yeah, I mean, there's there's a lot of issues in the air. I would say what's before us today specifically speaks to just the wording of what their motion is. Uh it I mean, I understand the the concern about it. Altering their power, from my point of view, it doesn't really change anything. Their the recommendation is still non-binding. It's still just what they're saying. And my initial interpretation was, you know, I was surprised to learn that they wanted to have a UDO amendment to explicitly say they could say this. It's just a matter of what they're saying to the board. They're They're It's still optional. They can still be uh you know, recommend denial and still get approved. They don't need to do anything. All that matters really is what's in the UDO, which as I mentioned earlier, we are in fact trying to do. And that balance uh between affordability and um you know, tree preservation and all the other stuff, I mean, that's a political question that is subjective based on the five people who are there that year. It'll change. People may have different importance. Some people may think they should do nothing and that's just kind of how it goes. Uh but putting stuff in the ordinance for firm regulations is is something I definitely would prefer and I'm interested in. And this is really about making the board relevant to the process because honestly, right now at times it can feel kind of irrelevant the way it works out. And um that's not the intention. The intention is that our our volunteers who who come and serve on these boards can have an impact and are listened to. Whether people do what they say or not is another question entirely, but making sure their words have have some weight and meaning I think is important and something I want for all of you and for all of our boards. So.

Was Was there a lot of concern about this prior to the data center?

Yes. So I have brought this up on multiple occasions. I think Diane can attest that I've I've mentioned like hey, I really wish they would vote on the actual thing and not necessarily the recommendations. I kind of brought it up in passing on several occasions over the past few years that it was always sort of the intention that they would be you know, giving their opinion on the project and the sufficiency of the mitigations that were proposed is the idea. I think the data center honestly put it front and center because of the perception of what happened and sort of the blowback they got from residents, the way it was portrayed in the press I think is unfortunate and a lot of the people there didn't really sign up for that. So I think a lot of them wish I mean they said to me later well I wish I was able to vote on people thought I was voting on but I was trying to put forward some recommendations and it's not how it played out. So that did honestly kind of kicked in the pants a bit to to try to straighten things out.

I guess the concern I've got a little bit is 2.3.3 F5 to me is really vague. When you throw out the word minimization of environmental impacts and protection from significant deterioration You know me, I've I've got a 12 and 1/2 acre farm. Deterioration for me is y'all putting a sewer line on the eastern part of my property. But we worked through that. To somebody else, if they've got 200 acres, that might not have been significant deterioration. So, I think it opens I think some of the language that's in there opens it up to non-objective points of views. Um you know, what what's the minimum what what does it do to your neighborhood? Well, if you disturb two hawks' nests, that might be significant.

Uh it'd be significant to me. Let me say that first of all. But I think that the scale of the size of the properties and I know that this doesn't land on properties less than I think 10 acres if I remember right.

Yeah. Yeah.

So, but still it's just the the I'll say the lack of an objective point of view on what is minimization and what's significant deterioration.

I would say um I'm sorry.

No, I mean that's my that's my concern.

Yeah, I think you're right and I think that is by design. I think all the legislative considerations are meant to be subjective judgments on all of us in our various capacities. Um the the environmental board may take a more aggressive uh view on on what is considered significant than the the planning board or the town council would. And the remedy is, you know, the town council can vote out if they start denying stuff because there's, you know, a nest in the corner and people don't like the value of their property getting reduced and and likewise if, you know, the other way if if we're not preserving stuff, there's there's that process for that. So, I think um I think the intention is for those conversations to happen earlier. I value a lot the conversations that happen in this room. We always watch the meetings and we hear what you're talking about and we know what the issues are. And um you know, we know the reasons like I was saying earlier, why you do or don't support something. And, you know, that absolutely weighs into what the council is. And I think for a narrow slice of that to happen, specifically on the environmental issues, I think it'll be a benefit because I find or I have found difficult to have meaningful uh, you know, conversations that impact a project too much at that late of a stage, because it's the last moment, and they want to, you know, yes or no, and to and to move on and everything else to laser timeline and whatever. So, in some ways, the intention was with the EAB to move those conversations earlier. So, if there's concerns about the trees or the buffers, they could have them.

And like I said, uh, you know, I I would argue it could be a benefit to the project if they can convince the EAB to say yes. How can we then stand up there and say, "Well, actually, I think you have environmental problems still." They would just say, "Well, what was the point of the EAB?" You know, and we very much want there to be a point to all that. So. Um, yeah, I guess that's my best response is it is designed to be a subjective process, the legislative considerations. The UDO is the objective process enforced by staff. And the stuff that we can't put in the UDO, we we do very much want to. It's just hard, often, frankly, especially in this uh, current environment with, you know, changing UDO regulations up, creating new zoning districts and stuff because of the current state law. So.

Thank you.

From Any other questions, Mr. Chair?

I'm just trying to balance it out with I appreciate you saying how much you appreciate what they're doing, and I'm sorry that you got run through. We did not want to, and I hate that for you, but that you are appreciating the fact that we're all volunteers, we're here for because we're trying to do that. So, I'm trying to balance that out with businesses in Apex or developers or engineers or whoever it is that's also coming in or, you know, Mr. Roach talking earlier. So, trying to balance out all sides of this.

That's fair.

where I'm coming in from this because there are heavy opinions on this side versus what's coming from the board side and I'm just trying to work my way through that.

Uh I would say um you know to to the degree I can make people sort of you know take a deep breath a little bit. I don't think too much is changing other than the wording of the motion they're making. It's still a non-binding motion. There may be a follow-up meeting if they want it. They could just be an email saying, "Hey, we agreed to everything." or "We couldn't do this for this reason." You know, um I at the council we're just asking for an opinion from the Environmental Advisory Board to advise us on environmental board stuff. Um it's really what it comes down to, but it doesn't actually create new obligations uh other than you know like

today they they give recommendations that they can follow or not follow. That really doesn't change, you know. Um now they can just say they're mad about it or not. You know. And I think you'll probably see some um variation amongst the board members in the EAB. You know, there's one guy might really really want this one condition about solar panels and not really care about anything else, but everyone else might say, "You know what? Uh they gave us 11 of the 12 things, so it's fine. You know, I understand the reasons why they can't do this." And that'll be in the public record. It'll be in the packet. We'll all read up before we get to the meeting and uh we'll know kind of what the score is uh before we get up there. So.

So, the way I presented this amendment last month to the the planning board with regard to the timing issue was that we all know that most developers want to have a recommendation of approval from every board they have to go to, right? It's in their best interest. Um and the concern was that if the developer was not able to add additional recommended zoning conditions at that first EAB meeting, the EAB may say, "Okay, well based on the information we have, we have to recommend denial of this legislative consideration because that's where they're making their motion. And so the applicant would maybe inclined to say request you to continue this to a another hear this again. We're going to come back so that they can make those changes. I don't believe that could happen via email or a letter. It would have to be in a meeting before the AB and so that was the concern was that in order to get that recommendation for approval they might have to come back if they were if they had to do homework to see how many more conditions they could offer. So that was staff's perspective of the situation that was explained to the planning board last month.

Okay. Yeah. As a non-lawyer, you know, I'm just looking for like I said for to give weight to the AB just as I want you all to have weight as all of our citizen volunteers.

but it's still non-binding even if

they were to approve it and we had this process. And we projects approved, I mean there's it's still non-binding on on whatever the developer would agree to, right?

Correct. Yeah, it's it's just the AB expressing um specifically their opinion on the project in regards narrowly to its environmental conditions and its environmental impact not the project as a whole. And like that's why I opened up with saying that is like we understand that they're speaking just on the appropriateness of the environmental conditions. That's it.

Yeah, I'm just trying to say how do we improve the scorecard and even in with this I don't know if it's going to improve the scorecard of that particular lane of what we're trying to accomplish.

I think the intention is that like staff was saying that developers may want to they have a motivation to earn that approval now. And they would try to then get that approval. Like if the perception is now that the recommendations don't matter, we're not reading them they might say oh yeah, sure we'll do pet waste station you you plant some bushes. Uh stuff like that. Uh but if it's if they have to work for the approval, that could end up being meaningful, you know. Say it again. Like

I just wanted to say like the things that I've seen that they chose not to do was like clover and panels. So, I mean like I've I've been reading what they chose not to do. There were recommendations of like 12 to 15 things and a lot of times they were doing like eight of them. And so, then they would say they weren't going to do like clover was mandated as an um you can't outlaw it or something like that. And and so, I I saw that a lot of them do want to get that approval and are doing and they're reading everything ahead of time. They don't come there in isolation. They've seen what was approved before. They've talked to staff. Um, and a lot of times these are repeat uh businesses in our in our area. So, that's not new. Um, and I don't think that they I don't think that they're ignoring them outright. That's not the impression that I got when I was reading through what they turned down.

That's just me. I've only been here since November.

Sure. I would I would say there's two cases recently where um after I got on the EAB board, I try to pay attention to this more where they agreed to a a little less than half the conditions and we said to the council, "Actually, we want to do more of them." And then they came back and did all but one twice. So, once they know you're looking, I think then they they focus on a little more, my opinion. But again, I understand it's a balance. I understand that there's, you know, multiple considerations. We care a lot about a lot of things. And uh you know, it's it's not there's not a one-size-fits-all to every project, especially when you know, there's uh project-specific considerations. You know, some sites may be more environmentally sensitive. You don't want to do stream crossings or or maybe it's uh adjacent to the tobacco trail or adjacent to some other protected property where like you know, it's really valuable here to have an extra 10 or 15 ft. Whereas somewhere in the center of Apex, you know, I'm I'm it's you know, Bambi's not going to live in a short, you know, type B buffer next to a road, so.

The properties are different. That that is true. You get you have if you trying to do a lot of affordable housing, then then you know, you may want to give way on some of the resource conservation area in order to get some things you want over here. So, they're they're different for different considerations in different locations.

Yeah, and that that uh

I agree.

That subjectivity that like discretion that the council has is always going to be there. Um this is you know, it's non-binding opinion uh and it uh it's just trying to to make them meet the what I'd say was the original intention of the board. Um bonus created about 7 years ago, so.

So, I know that uh we when we get these cases and we review them, we go through the reports. Um a lot of questions come up. And sometimes I wish we had a liaison here at the at some of these meetings. Um even like the schools, the letters

from the schools that we get, it's pretty generic. You know, insufficient space. So, I like to hear a little bit more like the details, explanation like on how and what even in the EAB reports, too.

Yeah, that's actually a good point. Would we be able to review any dissenting opinions? Like if or you know instead of just saying EAB recommends approval.

I'd imagine so, yeah.

Or EAB recommends denial. Can we

Sure. If you want to, yeah. Like I I would like to see that. I think it's important.

our packet?

Right.

I know it would be in all of our packets.

It probably wouldn't be ready by that point for us to review it, but would it be

I I mean, I'd be in favor of that, certainly. All the information you could have. Um and I would certainly Like I said, I I really I enjoy reading the dissenting opinions specifically. It's like, "Ooh, you know, what did Sarah say?" You know.

Not my department.

Yeah, there you go. You're ready. Get out your pen. Uh and I and and likewise for, you know, the EAB. You just want to know when you're making a decision, what is that dissenting opinion? So, even if it's just, you know, 7 to 1, you still want to know what that one person said. You know, it's interesting to see. Uh to your question about the schools, that's all that we can get them to agree to do uh when they, you know, we started that letter process, is they wanted something um sort of I say objective and you know, fair and consistent and that maybe would would not get them uh into much trouble. You know, it's just objective measure of how much capacity of the students and what is their their plan say. Um and so, that's the process we put in place. Better than what we had before where they we didn't hear from them at all. You know, so those letters I think are helpful uh because much like, you know, the environmental stuff, a lot of times um in the absence of some sort of, you know, hard data or judgment from an authority on the matter, people just make stuff up. You know, people will come out here and start shouting, "Oh, we don't have school capacity." Or "Oh, it's fine." We don't really know, you know, what do you do? You know, so the natural thing to do is to ask the the school system to weigh in based on the data that they have. So.

It's been helpful, but yeah, I would love for them to be there and actually give, you know, um I don't I don't really testimony, but you know, like speak on the matter directly. Uh but they're not going to do that. They're, you know, they want to leave us to our our stuff in Apex and just give some data sort of their view on And as far as why there's no board liaison here, I'm not really sure. Like I don't know why it was you need to the EAB. I don't know if other towns do that or not. Um but I tell you at the EAB, I have a moment to speak where I talk about what happened the last council meeting, you know, follow up on some um rezonings that came through to let them know what happened or didn't happen and talk about anything going on uh that may impact the board, you know, um a little update and and typically um unless something directly involves me or a question comes up, I just kind of sit on the side there and eat snacks. Listen up.

Just that EAB meet once a month, is that

Yeah.

Or so it's not as needed, it's a once a month standard meeting the way we have it here?

Okay. So, agreeing with what you said there, that would be very helpful to us to be able to go through all of that information, but is that just prolonging what we just said was an issue with making this whole process longer than it needs to be by having it go back and decided if length of time was one of the issues that we had where we voted against it. How do we streamline this whole, you know, I mean just because the information would be I mean, that would be great for us to have. So, again, noting that the minutes probably wouldn't be finished based on when the meeting is, but just some something to work with.

Yeah, I I agree. Yeah.

And And I would encourage, like you said, I'd I'd like to have for you to have the discussion with legal cuz at heart, not with the current council, but having been here for 23 plus years, it would disturb me a little bit to have

some certain prior council members that I know the at the table being able to share opinions and try to persuade because as I said last month, you're talking about 20% of the council is sitting in the room. And so then it all All it takes is another two council members just to be on the same side having information that the council that is in the room has through either individual or joint discussions with EAB members to persuade prematurely Yeah. discussions. Sure. I assure you I'll keep Gene and Wes far away from the EAB. Is that what you're talking about, right? Yeah. It's at the top of that. You know I've had a lot of discussions. You know where I come from. And so that's my real concern is making sure that it's a it's it's a board that stands independent of the council and able to make decisions on their own without worrying about what's said in the next 2 weeks or 3 weeks prior to the council meeting. Well, I'll commit to you guys I'll I'll talk to legal and I'll talk to the the board chair and see if we can address that procedurally with with me being around for those things. I could even come to the meeting and just leave after I do my council update if there's nothing else on the agenda. It'd be one way to address that is just not not be around. You know, so I'm I'm fine with that. I don't want to I am interested legitimately in their opinion. There's no point from my perspective of me trying to sway their opinion to then, you know, their non-binding opinion to me to then come in and do it. You know, I'm I genuinely interested in what they have to say. So, yeah, I'm happy to I think you know where I'm coming from. You guys can talk to John and Sue, too. Do you have any questions? Thank you, Terry. All right. That's all right. Would John like to speak?

Nope, Terry covered it. Great. We'll go back to the board for discussion, possible motion.

I I think for me if there is a physical liaison who attends meeting on behalf of that board, we should all have one there.

We have staff as our We have staff. Yeah.

And in my opinion, staff should be

have staff.

Staff should be the same I'm not saying that they should attend 40 meetings a month, but I mean that's what the the staff is there for, guidance and their expertise and knowledge.

They get everything.

Right. That's right.

Yeah.

Yeah, so I will say there is planning staff at the EAB meetings. Bruce attends whenever there's a rezoning on the agenda to ensure that the requested zoning conditions are legal, like we can have a zoning condition such that they're requesting. So staff is engaged and as far as you hearing from the EAB, we could create something like the planning board report to town council. We could have a EAB report to planning board and I guess and town town council to summarize. Um but essentially their recommendations are already being put in the planning board staff report that you get already. You're already seeing what they're recommending. And so we we would have that information in our staff report about what their recommendation is.

So it's already there. So why why why

Yeah, I think I mean just building up on what I said earlier. You know, if there's a 10 to one vote what does that one person say? Like or maybe they do recommend approval, but what what is the dissenting opinion? That I think something like that would be helpful cuz that's what we give to

the town councils to explain some reasoning behind that. So it would be good, you know, however the vote goes to see what dissenting opinions are um and understand where that recommendation is coming from. That would I I think that would influence how I understand EAB's evaluation of a project.

Yes.

I agree. I think our our last concern had a lot to do with the timing and the denial and then going back through and the continuation of the process. That I believe that was a one of the if I would recall correctly, that was one of our issues at the last meeting. One of our major issues.

Can we comment on mega from a developer's perspective when you come in with an application for a rezoning and uh you you want to get approvals from the boards you have to go in front of before you get the town council. Um I think it for from their perspective it feels like if they got denials that that may influence the town council's decision. you know, you're and you're when you're putting all this money together and all this work to get there. Um This just adds another layer of approval and denials. I mean, I I wasn't here for the previous discussion, but

No, you kind of hit the nail on the head. That was part of the concern is like there this is just one of the legislative items that's being addressed instead of the holistic package. So, right, what is that?

Yeah. Cuz even if it's non-binding, if if I'm a if I'm a commissioner or council member, um I take the the board the previous board's approvals and denials seriously. So, and that that could if I was a developer, I might start feeling very uncomfortable where my project was going, but anyway.

And I I did bring that up last time was my concern was adds another layer.

Um and I and I pointed out some things where we already have some wishes and but we haven't thought it's not anybody's fault. We just haven't gotten through all the how how can we part? But yet people are making business decisions and have being required. And I think for that reason I don't see any difference here. I I I respect it I love clover. I have it in my yard. It's amazing. I have no issues with most of what they want to do, but I understand when it comes down to dollars that some things have to go. So, I always read them and I always read the things that they agreed to. And I usually look for um what the staff says. That really weighs on me as what staff uh recommends. And um because they are consistent, they are the ones that know this better. And so, for that reason, I would vote no on this. Again, nothing to do with power or even the influence of the council member. For me, it's just another layer. I I love the idea of having more of their opinion in there than just like it right now I think it's like a check, right? Like it's like yes, that here's what they recommended and these are the things that they said they would do. And I would love to hear from um EAB like, "Hey, this was really important and this is why we thought on this particular project." I would love to hear that. But um mine was always about the timing of it and the layers. Um and so, for that reason, I was I will be voting no again.

Some municipalities don't have any EAB or

I'm sorry.

Some municipalities don't have a board like the environmental advisory board, so it is another layer.

That was my reasoning last time. Was the very same.

Any other discussion?

It's hot in here.

Put the AC on. I'm dying over here.

I wore a jacket to this meeting.

Do I need to make a re- Okay, I'll make a a um a motion to deny based on um the same reason as before, which was that it added in my opinion undue time and complexity

to the process. I need to do that more. Please let me know.

Second.

We have a motion from Christy. We have a second from Mark. All in favor, say I.

I.

All that oppose. Motion carried. Oh, we got I'm sorry. Once again tonight, I have uh Daniel. I'm not seeing the hands raised.

Was there a someone who voted against it?

Daniel. Daniel.

Daniel.

Okay. We are looking for one more motion.

Motion to adjourn.

Sarah can second.

We have a motion to second. All All in favor say "Aye."

Aye.

All opposed? Goodnight.

Goodnight.