2026-08-10 - Planning Board Meeting

01:40You're good?

01:42Is that your own computer?

10:17>> Well, ladies and gentlemen, welcome to

10:18the town of Apex planning board meeting.

10:20Today's date is August 10th, 2026.

10:23Um, we would now like to ask that you

10:25please bow your head in prayer.

10:28Lord, we lift the people of

10:30uh, we lift up the people of Apex. Every

10:32decision we make affects families,

10:35businesses, and future generations. Help

10:37us protect what makes this community

10:39special while guiding growth in a way

10:41that honors everyone. These things we

10:42ask in your name. Amen.

10:44>> Amen.

10:45>> Amen. Please stand for Pledge of

10:46Allegiance.

10:49>> I pledge allegiance to the flag of the

10:51United States of America, and to the

10:54republic for which it stands, one nation

10:57under God, indivisible, with liberty and

11:00justice for all.

11:06>> Okay, do we have any

11:08information from staff?

11:10>> There's nothing today.

11:11>> Thank you, Amanda.

11:13No items of information. We will now

11:14move into public comment. If you've not

11:16done so already, uh, to your left, you

11:18can sign [clears throat]

11:19to speak on any agenda or non-agenda

11:21items. The purpose of the public comment

11:24is to allow the public to speak on items

11:25that do not appear in this agenda under

11:27public hearings. Any member of the

11:29public wishing to comment on public

11:30hearing items will be called at the

11:32appropriate time later in the agenda.

11:35If there's a large number of speakers

11:36for one particular item, the planning

11:38board may ask a representative could be

11:41selected to speak for the entire group

11:42and limit the comments to 3 minutes.

11:45Do we have anyone to sign up on any

11:47non-agenda items? It does not appear so.

11:51Hearing none,

11:52we will close public comment

11:55and move on

11:57uh

11:58to consent item number one, minutes from

12:00the January 13th, 2026 regular meeting.

12:05Have any discrepancies? Any issues?

12:09Hearing none, I will make a motion to

12:10approve.

12:11>> Second.

12:12>> Second.

12:13>> Mark, all in favor say aye.

12:15>> Aye.

12:16>> All opposed?

12:17Motion carried.

12:19>> Who was the first?

12:21>> The chair.

12:22Yes, thank you.

12:25Okay, we will now move into the public

12:27hearing section.

12:29Please remember public hearing has the

12:30same 3-minute rule.

12:32Uh we will open consent item number one

12:34on the agenda, public hearing of

12:36possible motion regarding rezoning case

12:3826 ZZ053305

12:41Olive Chapel Road.

12:48>> Good afternoon, planning board and

12:50chair. Uh my name is Marissa Ste- Smith

12:52and I will be presenting the rezone case

12:54for 26 ZZ053305

12:58Olive Chapel Road.

13:00The project site is located on the

13:02western area of town, south of US 64 and

13:05approximately 1/2 mile from the border

13:07of Chatham County.

13:10The property is located along the south

13:12side of Olive Chapel Road.

13:14The property to the west is the Willow

13:16Hills PUD

13:17and to the east is the recently approved

13:20Lawrence property PUD.

13:22Land to the south is uh open space, Army

13:25Corps of Engineer.

13:27The 3.62 acre site includes an existing

13:30single-family home and a driveway off of

13:32Olive Chapel, and both will be retained.

13:36The site also includes mature trees,

13:39existing streams along the southern and

13:41eastern border, and the grade generally

13:43slopes from north what northwest to

13:46southeast.

13:48The existing zoning district is in the

13:50Wake County residential, and

13:53it is proposed to be rural residential

13:55conditional zoning.

13:57The current land use classification is

13:59rural density residential,

14:01and if approved,

14:03it would become rural transitional

14:06residential.

14:07Neighborhood meetings were held on April

14:0929th and July 15th of 2026,

14:13and due to the small nature of the

14:15project, it was not uh required to go to

14:18the Environmental Advisory Board.

14:20During the process, the applicant did

14:22agree to additional conditions, and

14:24these include adding a 70-ft wide

14:27undisturbed buffer along the southeast

14:29portion of the property,

14:30extending a 5-ft wide sidewalk across

14:32the project frontage of Olive Chapel

14:34Road,

14:35and recording a 30-ft wide easement uh

14:38Town of Apex public sewer easement along

14:40the southern boundary.

14:41Uh I did want to make a note that there

14:43will be a change to page four of the

14:45staff reports on these conditions 13,

14:4815, and 16. It will have the word wide

14:51added after the uh noted dimensions. We

14:54requested that the Planning Board also

14:56note this in their motion.

14:59The proposed rezone is reasonable and in

15:01public interest in that the rezone will

15:03allow for the existing single-family

15:05home to remain,

15:06and it will create a maximum of three

15:08lots, all that are generally consistent

15:10with those to the west.

15:12The proposed rezone will provide roadway

15:14frontage widening with a wide a sidewalk

15:16along Olive Chapel Road, and

15:18furthermore, the proposed rezone does

15:20include stricter architectural

15:22conditions than what is in the UDO.

15:25Planning staff recommends the approval

15:27of 26 CZ 05 as proposed by the

15:29applicant. And both applicant and staff

15:32are available for questions.

15:36>> Thank you, Marissa.

15:40Any questions for Marissa?

15:43>> Marissa, will the three homes be

15:45um

15:46going through the Willow rather than so

15:48that one will remain a single-family

15:50home entrance just for the house that's

15:51already there and then everyone else

15:53will go through

15:54Willow at Snow

15:57>> I believe the applicant has a slide that

15:59he'd like to present as well.

16:00>> Okay, great. Thank you, Marissa.

16:01>> Okay.

16:11>> Good afternoon.

16:13My name is Patrick Kiernan, Jones and

16:14Associates Engineering, 221 North Salem

16:16Street. Thank you all for your time

16:18tonight. Thank you, Marissa. And nice to

16:20finally meet you in person.

16:22Um

16:23I think this is a pretty short and sweet

16:25meeting, so I'll I'll try to keep that

16:26theme.

16:27Um

16:28Marissa kind of nailed all the main

16:30talking points. I wanted to share this

16:31exhibit

16:33um with you guys just to sort of

16:34highlight

16:35just how small of a usable acreage

16:40amount we have here. So, about 2/3 of

16:42the site is cut out by buffers, um

16:45right-of-way dedication, etc. Um so,

16:48what we're left with kind of in the

16:49middle, the white shaded portion is 1.2

16:52acres out of the 3.6 roughly that is

16:54being rezoned. Um

16:58as she said, we do intend on preserving

17:00the existing home along Old Chapel Road

17:03including the existing driveway. So,

17:06normally we don't really get into a

17:07whole lot of layout discussion with a

17:09rezoning, but on this one it it

17:12the design it sort of designs itself. We

17:14have an existing street stub at Snowbed

17:17Ridge.

17:18Um

17:19you know, it currently has, you know,

17:21future road extension signs on it. We

17:24have a perennial stream to our east um

17:26as well as an approved pod with no

17:28development, you know, to the east. So,

17:30we know that that road is not going to

17:31extend.

17:33It's going to end in a cul-de-sac.

17:34That's That's really the one design

17:35option that we have.

17:37Um beyond that, it's okay. We have

17:39enough area on the north side and the

17:41south side to match similar lot sizes as

17:44what Toll Brothers did next door in

17:45Willow Hills. So, that's really the long

17:47and short of our um our goal here. Um we

17:50are under the um size requirements for

17:53the

17:54um the road widening itself. We would be

17:57dedicating the 25-ft right-of-way

17:58dedication. And then um

18:02as Marissa said, we did agree uh my

18:04client did agree to go ahead and

18:05complete the sidewalk gap that would

18:07otherwise exist between Willow Hills and

18:09the Estates at All Chapel to our east,

18:11the Lawrence pod.

18:13Um so, those are sort of the, you know,

18:15extra components to this.

18:17The 70-ft wide understory buffer from

18:19Army Corps land um

18:21I know it is not the full 150-yd

18:24suggested buffer um

18:27that has been, I guess, implied um on

18:30previous projects. And I know that the

18:32Lawrence pod next door did I believe

18:34they did provide that. Turns out to

18:36about 450 ft of buffer.

18:38Um this project, given how

18:42small it is and I mean, 450 ft

18:45essentially is where the house is. So,

18:47we couldn't build a cul-de-sac. We

18:49couldn't do anything, really.

18:51At that point, it's okay. Let's Let's

18:53take a reasonable approach to this and

18:55and kind of look at this site

18:56specifically. [clears throat]

18:57The Willow Hills off the uh property a

18:59little bit, but down on the bottom left

19:01of the sheet, there is a home within

19:04Willow Hills, and I measured out the

19:06buffer that they have, and it's

19:07approximately 70 ft. So, that was sort

19:09of our okay, a compromise here. There is

19:11also this perennial stream and another

19:14uh tributary to the stream that really

19:16sort of cut I mean

19:18there's no wall there, but it's a it's a

19:20you know, major stream crossing going

19:23down into the reservoir.

19:24Um

19:25we believe that the intent of that

19:27suggested buffer is because it's

19:29technically game land.

19:32Because of the grade change that we'll

19:33have because of the creek, we don't

19:34anticipate

19:36you know, any necessarily you know, that

19:38those types of activities happening in

19:40this kind of

19:42corner of that game land there. So, we

19:45we believe it's a fair compromise in

19:46order to um provide the town the

19:49completion of the sidewalk gap and all

19:50those public facilities that we would be

19:52at you know,

19:53be adding.

19:54Um you know, the cul-de-sac as well, you

19:56know, kind of completing the Snowbird

19:58Ridge

19:59um landscape down there. So,

20:01that's sort of really the the long and

20:03short of it. I mean, it's it's a pretty

20:04simple um design. So,

20:07with that I'll see if you guys have any

20:08questions.

20:15>> Um

20:16I got [clears throat] to know the answer

20:16but

20:17in the lower left-hand corner

20:19is that a sewer pump station?

20:21>> It is. Yeah, I meant to label that.

20:22>> Okay. Is that

20:24Is there a Is the intent in the tying

20:25into that?

20:26>> So, we have um there's a manhole in

20:29Snowbird Ridge that we would just tie

20:30directly in like a normal subdivision.

20:33Um because of that pump station and

20:35because of a commitment from the

20:36Lawrence Pud to extend

20:40an easement across their southern

20:41boundary, uh we would be matching and

20:43doing the same and I've actually spoken

20:45with one of the property owners to the

20:47east of the Lawrence Pud at the

20:49neighborhood meeting. He specifically

20:50wanted to know

20:51would we be providing a corridor for

20:54future sewer? So, it's nothing planned

20:56right now. We're not building the sewer

20:57across our site. It would be um

21:01it would be interfering with some

21:03um well, really it would be deep and it

21:05would be

21:07to nowhere right now and it's not

21:09necessarily an upstream property that

21:10we'd be serving. It was just asked that

21:12hey, we don't close the door on them and

21:14make them, you know, come to my client

21:16later requesting an easement. We'll just

21:18go ahead and give you the easement so

21:19that it's sort of set up for them in the

21:21future. So, they were thrilled

21:22um that their

21:24you know, future route has been

21:25established.

21:33>> I have a question.

21:34>> Absolutely.

21:35>> So, the there's a um it looks like

21:37there's a blue line stream along the I

21:39guess that eastern property line.

21:42Um so, the buffer there that you're

21:44leaving is 70 ft in width. Is that what

21:45the proposed buffer is like?

21:47>> So, the green here, this is the actual

21:49perennial stream buffer. So, that's the

21:51100-ft buffer

21:52>> Okay.

21:52>> that is off of that blue line stream

21:54that you're seeing.

21:54>> Got you.

21:55>> The 70-ft is sort of a a number that we

21:57created internally just to, you know,

21:59allow for the construction of one home,

22:02not totally cut off that, you know, that

22:04side of the cul-de-sac altogether.

22:06Uh but it's not it's this blue is not

22:09necessarily related to a stream in

22:10general. It's it's it's the green that

22:12you you're referring to.

22:17>> And how many lots do you anticipate

22:18putting here?

22:19>> Total of three including the existing.

22:22So, we would essentially create a new

22:23lot line south of the existing home

22:26based on the setback requirements. Mhm.

22:32>> But we would be taking that home off of

22:34Well, it's up to them. They can be

22:35connecting it down to the cul-de-sac as

22:37well for utilities.

22:38>> All right. Looks good.

22:43>> Okay.

22:44Any other questions for Patrick?

22:49Hearing none, we will uh

22:52bring you back to the board.

22:53>> Thank you.

22:56>> Well, we're going to open public

22:57comment. Excuse me. I do not um

23:00I don't want to skip that one by any

23:01means, but I do not believe we'll have

23:02anyone here for public comment. Uh-oh.

23:08We'll open public comment. Hearing none,

23:10we'll close public comment, and we'll

23:11bring it back to the board for

23:12discussion and possible motion.

23:16>> It's pretty cut and dry.

23:18>> Yes, I was going to say the same words.

23:21>> Is that a motion?

23:22>> easy.

23:23>> It was a motion.

23:24Um for rezoning case CZ 26 CZ 05 with

23:28the word "white"

23:30put in

23:31>> What number did you say?

23:32>> 13 15

23:33>> and 16 after the dimensions.

23:35>> I believe that's what you all

23:36>> Is that right?

23:37>> Okay.

23:37>> All right.

23:38>> All right, we have a motion from Mary.

23:40>> Second.

23:41>> Second from Mark. All All in favor say

23:43aye.

23:44>> Aye.

23:44>> All opposed.

23:46Motion carries.

23:49Thank you. Then we will uh now go to new

23:51business.

23:53Item number one, Mr. Bruce.

24:10>> [cough and clears throat]

24:10>> Good evening, chair and board members.

24:12Just a couple of video amendments for

24:13you today. Nothing too substantive. Just

24:15a couple of cleanup items that we're

24:16going to go through and we'll walk you

24:18through those now.

24:20Uh principal planner three just for the

24:21record as well. So, the first amendment

24:23is going to be to sections 2.3.4F.

24:26Um and what this is is this is to change

24:28the the definite the classification of

24:30accessory apartments to accessory

24:31dwelling units. The accessory dwelling

24:33unit uh terminology has been used more

24:36widely in recent years as well as this

24:38is in our attempt to uh align ourselves

24:41with recently adopted uh state law,

24:43which has a new section for accessory

24:46dwelling units that we will be bringing

24:47before you guys in the next couple

24:49months to get that uh adopted to be in

24:50line with state law.

24:52The reason that didn't come before you

24:53today was they ratified it just a day

24:55after we were required to get you your

24:57information. So, it's being pushed off a

24:58little bit, but you'll see the same

24:59sections come up later on where we'll be

25:01adding some standards or adjusting to

25:03make sure that we're in compliance, but

25:04we'll go through the changes here.

25:07So, the first one under planned

25:08development districts, um we've crossed

25:10out accessory uh apartment and added

25:12accessory dwelling unit under section

25:14seven there in the very bottom.

25:16You'll see a theme.

25:18We have removed it from the use table.

25:20Um this was causing a little bit of

25:22confusion as accessory dwelling units

25:24are supposed to be accessory in nature,

25:26and so we should be referencing the UDO

25:28section for accessory uses, structures,

25:29and other areas where they're permitted.

25:31So, it has been removed from this

25:33section, but we have made sure that it

25:35is available and we will direct people

25:36to that other section where it should be

25:38located as well. So, that has been

25:39removed from there.

25:41So, originally since it wasn't in use

25:43table, it was required to be in our use

25:45classifications under residential uses.

25:48Because we've removed it, we also had to

25:50go into section 4.3.1

25:53and remove that section for accessory

25:55apartment, and we've now created a

25:57reserve section for future UDO

25:58amendments to go there as well. But with

26:00that, we have updated the accessory use

26:03section for accessory apartments by

26:05changing the name as we've talked about,

26:07and then also making sure that we added

26:09some language uh that would make it

26:11compliant with what was in the other

26:12section so it's appropriate moving

26:14forward. So, you can see that we've

26:16crossed out some sec- some language

26:18there and added the bold there to speak

26:20to um

26:21the floor of commercial uses and the MMR

26:24ex-residential districts and things like

26:25that. And again, we've changed the name

26:27where it's appropriate from accessory

26:29apartment to accessory dwelling unit.

26:34Again, further on in that section, it's

26:36uh it's been changed again from

26:37accessory apartment in section C, D, and

26:40E,

26:43as well as in F

26:44and G.

26:48And then um as far as it's been removed,

26:51accessory apartment has been removed

26:52from table 5.2.B,

26:54which it speaks to in permitted

26:56encroachments into required setbacks.

26:58Um these accessory dwelling units that

27:00are attached or just going to be subject

27:01to the the original setbacks of the

27:03principal structure itself, and so it

27:05was not needed to be there, so it's been

27:06removed as well.

27:10Um again, we've changed in uh the

27:12encroachments in the setbacks on 5.2.7.

27:15Uh for detached, we've uh changed the

27:18the terminology from accessory

27:19apartments to accessory dwelling units,

27:21so it's consistent.

27:25Um under 8.3.4 for our off-street

27:27parking loading locations, our

27:29residential driveways, again, there was

27:30a section under uh three for number of

27:33access points see

27:34we again we just changed the terminology

27:35from accessory apartment to the

27:36accessory dwelling units to be

27:37consistent.

27:40That's the first amendment uh before you

27:42today. Any questions about that?

27:44No.

27:44>> In 4.2.2, the use table,

27:47>> Mhm.

27:47>> I am getting the sense that this is an

27:49error, but it looks like all the P's are

27:51struck in congregate living facility, at

27:53least on the version that we have.

27:56Um

27:57Does anyone else see that?

27:58>> Good catch.

28:00>> Good catch. Thank you. Yeah, they must

28:01just inadvertently [clears throat]

28:02finger click. No.

28:04Nope, that is not supposed to be

28:05adjusted, so that'll be corrected for

28:06town council moving forward. Thank you

28:08for catching that.

28:10>> Good catch. I did.

28:13>> That would

28:16If there were no other comments or

28:18anything pointed out, I can move on to

28:19the second one.

28:21Okay, so this one is just about um

28:25changing the the required distance of

28:27unrestricted pedestrian movement um from

28:303 ft to 4 ft, um and we'll go over that

28:32here.

28:33So this is under signs and permitted

28:34signs location.

28:36Um for temporary signs, the sandwich

28:37board signs, which you'll see in front

28:39of different businesses and things like

28:40that to promote specials and other such

28:41things, um the UDO originally required

28:44only 3 ft of sidewalk width uh be

28:46unrestricted for pavement movement, but

28:49um for us to be in compliance with

28:51PROWAG, uh the guidelines for, you know,

28:54public rights-of-way access and

28:55easements and things like that, that

28:56does suggest 4 ft, and so we're moving

28:58into the more restrictive higher

29:00standards of the 4 ft unrestricted

29:02access along uh the feet of sidewalk.

29:04So, the signs will just have to go

29:05further back possible. And so, that's

29:07what we're proposing today.

29:11Any questions on that one?

29:14Nope.

29:15Okay, lastly number three. Um this one

29:17is just to kind of clean up a section

29:19that um

29:20funny enough

29:21has gone unnoticed for a while, and uh

29:24I'll show you what it what it was

29:25originally. So, this is just the

29:26determination of compliance. So, when an

29:28application comes into the town,

29:30we receive the submittal, we check for

29:32sufficiency, and then it goes into a

29:33review period. Um this speaks to how

29:36long the applicant has to respond to the

29:38comments that have been get to them

29:39after the first review period, and how

29:40long they have to resubmit after that.

29:42There's typically our practice has been

29:45this entire time 1 year. They have 1

29:47year to resubmit in order to keep the

29:48process moving forward. The original

29:50language spoke to they could resubmit no

29:53less than 1 year, which meant they

29:55wouldn't be able to submit until after a

29:57year had passed. Clearly, that's not

29:58what we've been practicing, and that's

29:59not what we want as far as helping our

30:01our business and commercial partners

30:03move forward. So, this section here is

30:04really just changing that to make sure

30:06that it is appropriate and in line with

30:07what we've been doing so far.

30:09So.

30:10That is the last amendment before you

30:11today. Any questions on that?

30:13>> No questions.

30:14>> Nope. Okay, thank you.

30:18>> All right, thank you, Bruce.

30:21I'll bring that back to the board for

30:22discussion.

30:25I think that one was very clear.

30:26>> Yes.

30:27>> Very easy.

30:28>> Very easy.

30:28>> Let's vote on it a minute by minute, or

30:30can we vote on it both at one time?

30:34Okay.

30:36Motion to approve.

30:38>> Do we have a second?

30:39>> Second, Christie.

30:40>> Second from Christie, motion from Jeff.

30:42All in favor say aye.

30:43>> Aye.

30:43>> All opposed.

30:45Motion carries.

30:47All right, we're going to need one more

30:48motion, guys.

30:50>> Motion to adjourn from Alyssa.

30:53>> To adjourn, got a second?

30:54>> I'll second, Mary.

30:56>> Second from Mary.

30:57All in favor say aye.

30:58>> Aye.

30:59>> All opposed.

31:00Motion carried.

31:02Thank you, guys.

31:03Thank you.

33:50>> Mhm.