2026-10-12 - Planning Board Meeting

00:53It's going to work.

00:55>> Yeah.

00:57>> Is this your dinner right now?

00:58>> Yeah.

01:30It must just set to go to sleep.

01:33>> Let me know if it dies. I'll give you my

01:36Do I even have

01:38I don't think it's going to die.

02:18Yes. Yes, that's the one. Yep.

09:3126 and we'd like to begin by asking vice

09:34chair Mr. Hastings to lead us in prayer.

09:37>> Thank you. [clears throat]

09:39Um, heavenly father, help us to make

09:41great decisions and great debate for the

09:44wonderful town of Apex and the residents

09:46that reside in it and help us move

09:49forward uh that we can all make great

09:51decisions that are prosperous both for

09:53the community as well as the town. Amen.

09:56>> Amen. Please stand for the pledge of

09:59allegiance.

10:02I pledge of allegiance to the flag of

10:04the United States of America and to the

10:07republic for which it stands. One nation

10:10under God, indivisible, with liberty and

10:13justice for all.

10:18>> Thank you.

10:21>> I guess she's going to bring it. I think

10:23she is.

10:25All right. We have items for Amanda.

10:29>> Okay. I have two items for you today.

10:31First, I'd like to introduce you to

10:33Nathan Jesperson. He's our new uh non-

10:36voting youth representative for the

10:37planning board. Um, I got to meet with

10:39him last week and um,

10:53so uh, as I said, Nathan has joined us

10:56as a student representative, bringing a

10:58youth perspective to discussion about

11:00the town's growth and future

11:01development. He is a 16-year-old junior

11:03at Thales Academy in Apex. Outside of

11:05school, Nathan enjoys running building

11:07engineering projects and founding a

11:09student club that brings in remarkable

11:11people to learn from their experience.

11:13He has a strong interest in civic

11:14engagement and community planning and is

11:16excited to help shape the future of the

11:18town he calls home. So, welcome to

11:20Nathan.

11:20>> Welcome, Nathan. Welcome. [applause]

11:26>> So, the next item of information is um

11:28about peak plan 2055. We have public

11:30forum number three coming up on November

11:3212th. Um as uh as you are aware but for

11:36the all uh for the community uh peak

11:38plan is the update to our comprehensive

11:39plan looking out to the year 2055. Um

11:43and it's a very important um plan for

11:45the community to be engaged in. So we

11:47have um November 12th anyone can drop in

11:50between 4 to 7:00 p.m. in the community

11:52center. We will be um unveiling the

11:56draft land use and transportation

11:57recommendations and receiving public

12:00input. Um after the public forum on

12:03November 12th, the next day, we will be

12:05posting the recommendations online and

12:08providing an online comment form um so

12:10that people can provide their input

12:12either in person or online, whatever is

12:14most convenient for them. And all of

12:16this information about peak plan 2055 is

12:19available at apexnc.org

12:22peakplan. And you can also on this page

12:24sign up to receive email updates about

12:26this planning process and all

12:28opportunities for public input.

12:31Thank you, Amanda.

12:32>> You're welcome.

12:35>> Okay, now we will move to public

12:37comment. If you've not done so already,

12:40to your left, you can sign up to speak

12:42on any agenda or non-aggenda items. The

12:45purpose of Thank you very much. The

12:47purpose of com public comment is to

12:48allow the public to speak on items that

12:50do not appear on this agenda under

12:52public hearings. Any member of the

12:54public wishing to comment on public

12:55hearing items would be called at the

12:57appropriate time later on the agenda. Uh

12:59we do ask that all comments be limited

13:01to three minutes and not repetitive is

13:03there if there's a large number of

13:04speakers for one particular item. Uh the

13:07planning board asks that a

13:08representative could be selected to

13:10speak for the entire group and limit the

13:12comments to nine minutes. All right. So

13:14who do we have signed up tonight? We

13:16will start at the top with Mayor Jo

13:18Gilbert.

13:21>> Good afternoon, Mayor.

13:22>> Good afternoon. It's kind of strange

13:24being on this side, but moving on. First

13:27of all, I just want to um say thank you

13:30so much for the opportunity. Have three

13:32things to hit tonight. First, thank you

13:34for all you do. I know you come up here

13:36every other week or second Monday of

13:40every month and deliver your personal

13:42time to um serve the town. So, thank you

13:44for what you do. And the next thing I

13:47want to say is good job. I know you're

13:50going to take up the item tonight on old

13:52business with the UDO amendment that

13:54impacts board appointments. I just want

13:56to say when you delayed it last month,

14:00it was a good job because I had not

14:02weighed in on the item. So, I appreciate

14:04you giving me the opportunity to do

14:06that. The next thing I want to say is

14:08keep up the great work. As we move

14:11through this item, it's very

14:13controversial, but it's shouldn't be.

14:16We're council members. We're leaders of

14:18the town, and we will figure this out.

14:21All I ask you to do is just keep in mind

14:24the question, what problem are we trying

14:26to solve?

14:28And all we want to do is just bring in

14:29people like Nathan and all of you to

14:31serve our town.

14:33And the item at hand is just simply

14:36about bringing in people to serve the

14:37town. And I think the discrepancy is

14:41just this.

14:43When I bring in a name,

14:46you either accept it or you don't. And

14:48if the name is not a desirable name,

14:51it's up to us to work together to figure

14:53it out and come back and present a new

14:57name, the same name or find the best

15:00person to serve in that position. And

15:03that's what the solution should be.

15:07Mayor and council working together. All

15:09I want to see is a balance of power. Um,

15:12on the item that you're going to hear,

15:13again, there's one item on there that I

15:17think is not going to serve the town

15:19well, and that is if the mayor presents

15:22a name, the council has the authority to

15:24just not accept that name

15:28and present a new name. Where's the

15:30balance of power? Again, going back to

15:33my original point, it's up to us to work

15:36together as mayor and counsel because

15:38that's what we're elected to do.

15:41So my final thing is I apologize. What

15:45is my apology for? That all of you are

15:48in this position to make the decision to

15:50move it back to council. And also want

15:52to apologize to staff for being in the

15:55middle of this because they shouldn't

15:56be. So tonight, I hope you make the best

15:59decision for Apex and move this forward,

16:02keeping in mind that the mayor and

16:04council will work together to find the

16:07best person for these boards and

16:11committees. Thank you.

16:13>> Thank you very much, Mayor.

16:18Next, we have Mr. Roach. Good afternoon,

16:21Mr. Roach.

16:23>> Good afternoon, everybody, chair,

16:25members of the board. Jeff Roach, Peak

16:27Engineering and Design. Um, I hate going

16:29after the mayor in anything, uh, at the

16:31gym, running, anything. He always beats

16:32me, so I hate coming after him, so I'll

16:34be quick. Um, he he touched on it.

16:36Balance of power is my concern. I was

16:38here last month when this first came up.

16:39I appreciate you guys delaying it as

16:41well. Um, I believe that everything in

16:43this ordinance amendment is right except

16:45for allowing council to immediately deny

16:48the mayor's recommendation and to put a

16:50new member into planning board um the

16:53the EAB or whatever whatever board

16:55they're they're applying for. Um, this

16:58isn't about Mayor Jacqu Gilbert. This

17:00isn't about Mayor Weatherly. This isn't

17:02about Bill Sutton. go back as far every

17:04this is about future mayors having the

17:06ability to interview and talk to people

17:08that want to be on planning board or

17:10EAB. Um you don't want five council

17:13members reaching out to a prospective

17:15member to interview everybody that's

17:16applying for a position on these boards.

17:18Um that person would be overwhelmed. The

17:20board members would be overwhelmed. The

17:22mayors would be overwhelmed. So, um, my

17:24hope is that you guys will will

17:26recommend approval to council of the UDO

17:28amendment with the one modification,

17:30which is allowing the council to

17:32immediately recommend somebody over top

17:33of their denial. Um, I love putting the

17:36mayor on a clock. If he can't respond

17:38within 30 days, absolutely the council

17:39should respond. Um, but that's my

17:41request. It's the same as it was last

17:43month, and I appreciate the the couple

17:44minutes here. And again, I apologize for

17:46falling.

17:47>> Thank you, Jeff.

17:49>> Thank you, Jeff.

17:52Okay.

17:56So,

17:58we will close public comment, move to

18:00public hearings, move it. Well, no, I'm

18:02sorry. We'll move uh consent item number

18:04one, the minutes from the August 10th,

18:062026 meeting, and also the minutes from

18:08the September 14th, 2026 regular

18:10meeting.

18:11I wonder if everyone I'm sure everyone's

18:13had a chance to review. Do we have any

18:15discrepancies?

18:18Seeing none, uh I will make a motion to

18:20approve.

18:23All in favor say I. I.

18:25>> All oppose. Motion carries.

18:29>> And now we will move into the public

18:30hearing section. Public hearing has a

18:32same threem minute rule. And we will now

18:34open item number one on the agenda. The

18:36public hearing a possible motion

18:38regarding resulting [snorts] case 26Z01

18:41Jesse Pud amendment.

18:44>> Good afternoon uh planning board chair

18:47and planning board members. Uh this is

18:50Jesse Common's land unit development

18:52amendment. And this is uh project is

18:55located in the south area of town

18:58located east of um NC55 and south of

19:02pristine water drive and north of Wick

19:05Road. This partial is 64.37

19:08acres and includes mature woods and then

19:12there's a stream you can see

19:16that bisects the um partial north to

19:20south and in the northwest corner right

19:23here is a portion of the uh apex public

19:26safety station number four.

19:31So the uh zoning district is plan unit

19:34development conditional zoning. This was

19:36approved way back in 2006.

19:40And um the surrounding area is uh light

19:45industrial to the north and to the east

19:49which is the Dixie pipeline to the

19:52north. And this right here, this light

19:54industrial is still vacant. Uh this

19:59port, this partial does include um the

20:03light industrial that's under review

20:06right now for construction

20:09and then to the south is Trinity PUD

20:12which is plan unit development and to

20:15the west is of course Highway 55 and

20:18then plan commercial conditional use and

20:22this is um of course right there that

20:24rest that area is the Apex public safety

20:28station number four and then there's

20:30some um wholesale and contractor yard

20:34for storage. Just to give you briefing

20:37of what is the area and of course the

20:40proposed planned um zoning district is

20:43plan unit development conditional

20:45zoning.

20:48The land use designation on the west

20:51side of you can see where that creek is

20:55is commercial services

20:58and then on the east side is industrial

21:00employment and office employment.

21:05[cough] Uh the applicant conducted the

21:07first neighborhood meeting on February

21:0911th, 2026 and the second on July 13,

21:132026. and the neighborhood meeting

21:15reports are attached with their packet.

21:19So this slide shows the existing

21:21conditions and transportation plan

21:23designation. So Jesse Drive comes across

21:27here as a extension

21:29um is required to be constructed as a

21:31four-lane thoroughfare with the median

21:33crossing um crossing the site east to

21:37west and then the purple is that 10 foot

21:40uh side path. Those will be required on

21:43either side. NC55

21:47U East William Street is required to be

21:50improved to a sixlane super street with

21:53a 10-ft um side 10- foot wide uh side

21:56path on either side as well. So the

21:59super street includes that

22:02uh name actually includes restricted as

22:06restricted intersections meaning um

22:09reduced conflict intersection or rci.

22:13Um, also you can see a major collector

22:15right here and that has bike lanes on

22:18each side and then a minor collector um

22:21is required to be constructed south of

22:23Jesse Drive

22:27and um the rideway dedication and fringe

22:30improvements will be coordinated at the

22:31time of subdivision and site plan

22:33review.

22:36So the Jesse Commons pud land use plan

22:38back in 2006 had a commercial and office

22:43areas and they identified as um C1 to

22:46the north of Jesse C2 and then 01 and O2

22:52and those have um corresponding design

22:54controls.

22:58So, the proposed Jesse Commons P

22:59amendments um include an increase of

23:03building square footage in the 01 and O2

23:07uh combined that 60,000 square ft and

23:11then a maximum building height has been

23:13increased um to 48 ft um across the

23:17board.

23:21And with that increase of square

23:22footage, um, they had to do the

23:25applicant had to provide a traffic

23:26impact analysis.

23:29There are two scenarios for that

23:31intersection at Highway 55 and Jesse um,

23:35drive. So scenario one um, that they

23:38looked at was a full movement access.

23:41So um, that's provide dual westbound

23:44left turn lanes and exclusive right turn

23:46lane on Jesse Drive. Um, and then the

23:50second scenario was a reduce conflict

23:53intersection or rci which is a super

23:56street and that was going to be

23:58providing construct an exclusive

24:01northbound right turn lane and that

24:03would also include um both include the

24:07install a traffic signal to accommodate

24:11um that full movement and then a traffic

24:14symbol to accommodate the rci rci

24:17configuration.

24:19So NC55

24:21um a U-turn north of Jesse Drive

24:23extension and construct that U-turn bulb

24:27on um NC55

24:29that's north of Jesse Drive and then a

24:32dual northbound U-turn lanes on 55 each

24:35with 200 foot storage and then install

24:37that uh traffic signal.

24:43So the um

24:47the applicant is proposing scenario one

24:51which is the full movement intersection

24:55and they are at let's see

25:00there's site access A and access F. So

25:05you can see on this I can get this

25:08here's site access a this is NC55

25:12and right along here is Jessie drive.

25:17So there's two access points with this

25:19here's that full movement and then a

25:21right in right out access on 55 and then

25:24one right here which is site access F

25:28and then there's um four access points

25:31off of Jesse Drive into the retail pod

25:34and in the industrial pot and then

25:36what's south of Jesse Drive.

25:38>> Yeah. Can you highlight the full access

25:40again with that Jesse Drive?

25:43>> Okay.

25:44Thank you.

25:48So,

25:50the Apex Transportation and

25:52Infrastructure Development um they

25:55reviewed the traffic impact analysis and

25:59they're recommending scenario number

26:01two, the reduced conflict intersection

26:04or RCI.

26:06So, they're um recommending construct

26:08Jesse Drive ending as RCI configuration

26:11NC55.

26:13The rci is Consistent with

26:15transportation plan and Jesse Drive

26:17extension feasibility study. The

26:20transportation plan designates NC55 as a

26:24six lane super street or the RCI.

26:27Um level of service that the little

26:31asterisk

26:33it was quite a long paragraph but it is

26:36on your um page nine of your staff

26:38report and that explains the level of

26:41service. So the main inter intersection

26:43is anticipated to operate at overall

26:46level service C during AM and PM peak

26:49hours under build conditions. The

26:52accompanied northern U-turn signal is

26:55expected at an overall level of service

26:58C during AM peak hour and overall LOSF

27:02during PM peak hour. So the PM level of

27:06service improves to a LOSD

27:09when three southbound through lanes are

27:12analyzed at this intersection consistent

27:14with the NC55 ultimate crosssections.

27:18And then the third um southbound through

27:20lane starting approximately 1,200 feet

27:24north of site access a that's also the

27:28next bullet statement on page nine of

27:31your staff report and that's stating

27:34that a connection to the approved

27:35frontage widening plan for Vidia to the

27:38south of the site that would mitigate um

27:41the LOSF

27:45and staff recommends an additional

27:47northbound

27:48through lane on NC55.

27:53So this um as far as this traffic impact

27:58analysis of trip generation, the site is

28:01projected to generate 455 trips entering

28:05in 268 trips exiting during the weekday

28:09AM peak hour and then um 3567

28:14trips entering and 444 trips exiting the

28:18week weekday PM peak hour. So, the site

28:22is expected to add 10,750

28:25daily trips to the adjacent roadway

28:28network.

28:31And so, I was just showing what this

28:33existing RCA U RCI on Highway 64.

28:39So, here's the Jinx Road and the RCI is

28:42you would take a right and then here's

28:45your Uturn right here to come back. And

28:49same with um Jinx Road, but you can make

28:52a left into the site. And this is

28:56actually um Sweetwater and there's the

28:59Harris Teter grocery store. And then

29:02here's the second pole.

29:08So I wanted to explain on the staff

29:09report we did include that the NC do

29:13project HL07

29:16and that is a um

29:21project that NC do includes converting

29:24that intersection at NC55

29:27at William Street to a reduced conflict

29:30intersection RCI with a signalized

29:33Uturns locations north and south of the

29:35intersection. So that's south of this

29:38site.

29:40So NC DOT evaluated the East William

29:43Street in uh Technology Drive 55. During

29:47that process, the staff received

29:50requests to bring forward the amendment

29:53on the transportation plan

29:56um from the development interest on the

29:58east side of East Williams Street. So

30:01that's that's this project right here.

30:04So, back when um the transportation plan

30:07actually showed in 2020,

30:10a separated grade um interchange at

30:15Jesse Commons Drive and NC55 and also on

30:20um technology drive.

30:23So when NC do was looking at this site

30:26for the RCI

30:28that reduced the amount of ride of

30:31weight needed and of course costs less

30:34than interchange and so that's when the

30:38um applicant is also

30:41interested in in having that

30:42transportation plan to remove the grade

30:46separated interchange at Jesse Common

30:48Drive and that was done back in 2023.

30:52So that's how we got to the rci or super

30:56street.

31:03>> June on that map you've got right there.

31:05Can you sort of highlight where the fire

31:07station is? Carly is

31:12>> that's part of the putt, is it?

31:14>> It's it's not part it's just this little

31:18portion of it. It's already built.

31:19>> Well, I know it's built, but

31:22Where is it within the map of what the

31:26like that the northbound

31:29entrance onto Highway 55 of the

31:31neighborhood? How does that correlate

31:33with where the fire station is now?

31:35>> Here comes the traffic.

31:37>> Okay. No, no, thank you.

31:40>> Um, it's just above site driveway.

31:45No, it's just off screen.

31:51I don't know if this is any better. So,

31:53here would be Jesse Drive coming in

31:57and fire the public service stations

32:00right here. So, it would be just north

32:03of Site Driveway A.

32:05>> Okay.

32:08>> Okay. Thank you.

32:20So the um Apex transportation

32:22infrastructure development

32:24recommendations

32:25um are listed. There's a couple of

32:27access and you could see what their

32:30comments were are green. Um but the the

32:34main item was that the intersection at

32:38Jesse Drive and NC55 via RCI include the

32:44um U-turn bulbs and also on site access

32:50C, which is right here, a directional

32:53crossover restricting left turn movement

32:55for both northbound and southbound

32:57approaches.

32:59So in

33:01the next few slides,

33:04the um TI [snorts] staff took what the

33:08applicant is is recommending as far as

33:11their amendments to their conditions on

33:13the plan unit development and they made

33:16um deletions are shown of course and

33:19strike through. added language is shown

33:21in bold font and then the asterisk after

33:27um indicates that the applicant and T

33:30staff condition is the same but they

33:32just have different language

33:36and those are also in your um staff

33:39report.

33:52And the two that I do want to the last

33:55two that are added was a transit

33:57improvement that T staff is

34:00recommending. The developer shall

34:02construct concrete flatwork to the town

34:04standard um for bus stops for a pair of

34:08future bus stops along Jesse Drive close

34:10to the proposed grocery store entrance

34:13and um the permanent transit easement.

34:16So no bus shop amenities or signage

34:19shall be required to be purchased or

34:21installed by the applicant. Um and then

34:23exact locations will be determined at

34:26site plan approval.

34:28The second bullet is if any of the

34:31committed transportation improvements

34:32require acquisition of off-site rightway

34:35easements or other property interests

34:37the off-site rightway

34:39developer shall make good faith efforts

34:41to acquire off-site rightway. If the

34:44developer is unable to acquire any

34:46offsite right away through private

34:48negotiation and the town is unwilling or

34:50unable to assist in the acquisition,

34:53developer shall pay um a fee in L for

34:56the transportation improvement that

34:58cannot be completed including the

35:00estimated cost of acquisition permitting

35:02fees and construction subject to town

35:05review and approval that engineers

35:07estimate provided by the developer.

35:13So, a summary on this um slide is

35:16concerns that staff has with applicants

35:19proposed transportation conditions. It's

35:22inconsistent with the transportation

35:24plan regarding the NC55 access is more

35:28difficult and costly in the future to

35:30build the rci with occupied businesses

35:33on Jesse Drive. So Jesse Commons adds

35:3610,750

35:38new daily trips to the adjacent roadway

35:40network.

35:42So a 2017 study by Federal Highway

35:46Administration found that RCI with

35:48traffic signals reduce crashes 15%

35:51compared to the conventional you know

35:54full movement intersections

35:56and the applicant has not provided any

35:58documentation of negotiations for the

36:01offsite rightway for dual Uturn and

36:04additional south um bound lane prior to

36:07proposing the full movement

36:09intersection.

36:16So this um resoning was exempt from

36:18meeting with the Apex Environmental

36:20Advisory Board.

36:22Planning staff recommends approval of

36:25resoning 26 CZ2 Jesse Commons PU

36:28amendment if the recommended conditions

36:30by transportation and infrastructure

36:32development staff are added by the

36:35applicant. Um, and let's see pages 10

36:38through 14 for the recommendations.

36:41While the proposed amendment to the

36:43current plan unit development

36:45conditional zoning zoning district is

36:47consistent with the commercial services

36:50and office employment industrial

36:52employment classifications on the 2045

36:54land use map. It is not consistent with

36:57apex transportation plan. If the staff

37:00recommended transportation conditions

37:02are added by the applicant, the proposed

37:05p Amendments will also be consistent

37:07with the transportation plan.

37:10And the proposed resoning is reasonable

37:12and in public interest only if the

37:15revised conditions is proposed by

37:17transportation and infrastructure

37:19development staff are added. Um if those

37:22revisions are made, the resoning will

37:24allow for an increase in the scale of

37:26development that is more in line with

37:28the new development in the area while

37:30ensuring compliance with the existing

37:32conditions. the previously approved HUD

37:34and updating required road improvements.

37:37The proposed resoning of staff um

37:40recommended transportation conditions

37:42will ensure that NC55 is built to the

37:45town of Apex and NC DOT Super Street uh

37:49requirements.

37:51And as you can see the um there's also

37:54Vidia on the other side of East Williams

37:58Street that's being constructed right

38:00now. So, um, you have any questions for

38:04staff or the applicant? And they have

38:07the applicant has a presentation as

38:09well.

38:10>> Thank you, June.

38:14>> Like speak

38:31Oh, on the bottom. This one.

38:40There we go.

38:49Uh, good evening, Mr. Chair, members of

38:51the planning board. Jason Baron with

38:52Morning Star Law Group here on behalf of

38:54Strategic Real Estate Partners. I've got

38:56multiple representatives with strategic

38:57real estate partners in the building

38:59tonight can answer questions related to

39:01the business side of this if you've got

39:02any. Also joining me tonight and who

39:04will be speaking momentarily is Kevin

39:06Dean with Kimley Horn. They have done

39:08the traffic analysis on behalf of the

39:09applicant have been corresponding

39:11directly not only with the town's

39:12transportation staff but also NC DOT. Uh

39:15and last but certainly not least, Mr.

39:17Jeff Roach with Peak Engineering um has

39:20been doing the engineering and planning

39:21associated with this case. This case is

39:23actually pretty simple. Um, at the end

39:25of the day, this is a pretty simple

39:27case. I think we all agree. It's the

39:28rare occasion that you've got a existing

39:31pud that calls for nothing but

39:32employment related uses. Um, and the

39:36applicant in this case wants to increase

39:38the allotment associated with that uh

39:40employment related use. There is no

39:42residential that's proposed obviously

39:43and it's the light industrial piece of

39:45the equation as you heard that they're

39:46seeking to uh tweak. Uh all we are

39:50asking at this point and the reason why

39:52we can't commit to the town's

39:54transportation plan and you will hear

39:56more about this momentarily uh is that

39:59the the town's transportation plan would

40:01require the construction of a U-turn

40:03movement that is an off-site improvement

40:06that we don't have the ability to

40:07construct. We can't guarantee that it

40:09would be constructed. Uh my client has

40:11reached out to those owners. Those

40:12owners have politely said pound sand.

40:14We're not interested. And I will walk

40:16you through some slides that shows the

40:18impact of that turnaround movement. If

40:21that weren't a problem, my client would

40:23be more than willing to commit to the

40:25town's recommended improvements. U in

40:29fact, the design that they've come up

40:30with for the full movement intersection

40:33um can easily be converted to an RCI if

40:37and when the kind of networkwide

40:40thoroughfare improvements occur along

40:4255. So ultimately, and I've got a

40:45presentation, ultimately all we're

40:46trying to do is to move forward with a

40:49case that will allow us to continue

40:50conversations with NC DOT that don't end

40:54up with the property being undevelopable

40:56because it requires a fairly significant

40:58off-site improvement. Um, again, 64 and

41:02a quarter acres. Uh, the site is, you

41:04know, located on the east side of East

41:07William Street, currently zoned PUD CZ.

41:10I'm gonna move through this pretty

41:11quickly. This was the original um

41:13entitlement associated with the

41:15development and there's really only two

41:16changes. I mean there's uh this pods 01

41:19and 02 as you heard are being increased

41:21by about 60,000 ft total. And then

41:24additionally the uh maximum building

41:27height is moving from to a standard 48

41:30ft across all four pods. That's

41:33consistent with what the UDO would

41:34otherwise require if the case were being

41:36approved today. So those those are

41:38really the only two changes that are

41:40happening related to this pud that was

41:42in fact adopted 20 years ago. So again,

41:44that's that's kind of what you see here.

41:46Pods one and two or pods 01 and 02

41:49seeking that increase in roughly 60,000

41:51square feet of light industrial aotment

41:53and then the maximum building height to

41:5548 ft. And just for your edification,

41:57this is the layout that they're

41:59currently operating under. And I just

42:01kind of walk you through and I think uh

42:04Mr. Hastings, it answers your question

42:06relative to the fire station. We're

42:08providing access to that site actually

42:10through the development. And I know this

42:12is not part of the zoning case. Just

42:13kind of want to give you a little bit of

42:15a snapshot in terms of the way the site

42:17is anticipated to be laid out. Strategic

42:19Real Estate Partners does commercial as

42:21well as light industrial. So, they're

42:22actually going to be executing on the

42:24entirety of this plan. The idea is to

42:26have a grocery anchored shopping center

42:27up along the highway 55 frontage and

42:29then behind it these light industrial

42:31uses that they're seeking to increase

42:33the allotment for. Obviously, Jesse

42:36Drive has been a topic of conversation

42:38at this board at council in the town for

42:41an extended period of time. Um, this

42:43case will significantly advance the

42:46completion of Jesse Drive. It doesn't

42:48complete Jesse Drive as you're aware.

42:49Jesse Drive Industrial is constructing.

42:53they're required to dedicate and

42:54construct the portion of Jesse Drive

42:56through their site. Uh this site will

42:59close that will help close that gap with

43:01the construction of this portion. And I

43:03would note as as was mentioned, there is

43:05a stream that runs through the middle of

43:07the site. The crossing associated with

43:09that is expensive. It's a four-lane

43:11divide and we're not looking for any

43:12exceptions to that. They're constructing

43:14Jesse Drive consistent with the town's

43:16long-range plan. When we construct and

43:19the Jesse Drive industrial case builds

43:21their portion, it'll be roughly 1,200

43:24linear feet that remains for Jesse Drive

43:26to finally be completed.

43:29Um, the original site access that was

43:31approved, again, this was long time ago

43:33was 2006. Um, it aged me a little bit

43:35because I think I was doing land use of

43:36work in the town of Apex in 2006. Uh,

43:40but it it contemplated a full movement

43:42Jesse Drive intersection back in 2006.

43:44And this is the excerpts and this is

43:46from the existing PUD document. As you

43:48can see, there were access points

43:49delineated in a number of places.

43:52As was mentioned by June during her

43:54presentation, ultimately what the town

43:56is asking for is for us to make a

43:57commitment to install the rci or the

44:00super street as the case may be and we

44:02just don't have the ability to make that

44:04commitment. We have been talking to DOT

44:06and I'm going to call up Kevin Dean

44:07momentarily to walk through that and

44:09those conversations. Um, we believe we

44:12can work on a solution with DOT,

44:14something that will be approvable. Um,

44:16that will basically be what I would

44:18consider an interim situation that will

44:20allow the property to develop for these

44:22very valuable uses, allow the employment

44:24to come, allow the commercial services

44:26to come and then when DOT comes back or

44:28the town as the case may be with a more

44:30systemwide improvement along 55, it can

44:32be easily converted and there's nothing

44:34we're doing that's going to prevent that

44:36at the front door. So, as I mentioned,

44:37the issue with the rci isn't a

44:40willingness of my client. It isn't a

44:42lack of desire. If they had the ability

44:45to put it in, they would absolutely put

44:46it in. They wouldn't be asking the town

44:48for any money. Um, they would put it in.

44:50We just don't have the ability to do

44:52that because it's an off-site

44:54improvement. So, we need to work with

44:55third parties and those third parties

44:57have not expressed an interest in

44:59participating. And I will show you

45:01slides which makes that very

45:03understandable. I understand why the the

45:05business owners along the west side of

45:07William Street would not be a fan of the

45:10Super Street movement. The the the

45:12roundabout or the the uh turnaround. And

45:15so this is ultimately what the design

45:17looks like. And so as you can see, so

45:20this is now kind of plan north is off to

45:22the or plan east uh is is north. And so

45:26these businesses, as you you can't see

45:28it very very well, but these are

45:30existing site accesses. And so this is a

45:33standalone

45:34business whose access will be eliminated

45:37entirely. That business has no other

45:40access to Highway 55. What that means is

45:43in order to acquire the right of way

45:45necessary in order to put in the the

45:47turnaround movement and this is where it

45:48has to go. DOT has said they've kind of

45:50looked all the way up and down the

45:51corridor. This is where it has to go. Um

45:54in order to acquire that right of way,

45:56you essentially have to buy the

45:57business. It's it's condemning the

45:58business unless they're willing to move.

46:01Um there's multiple other accesses that

46:03are going to be eliminated during that

46:05process. You can see these are

46:06highlighted in pink. Um those access

46:08points will also be removed as part of

46:11that construction project. And again, I

46:13just want to reiterate those two

46:14businesses have no other access to their

46:18to their buildings, to their uses. Their

46:20exclusive access is out onto Highway 55.

46:24And um that's not changing anytime soon.

46:26And so I just want to I typically don't

46:29like to stand here and and play lawyer.

46:31Uh but I do want to note although I am

46:34one u I do want to note that there are

46:36some constraints associated with the

46:39ability of local governments to require

46:41off-site improvements as well as NC DOT

46:44and I've excerpted those and I'm not

46:45going to spend a whole lot of time

46:46talking about that. But I do want to

46:48note that the the situation we have

46:51right now is actually a product of

46:52developing this site at all. So, if we

46:55weren't going through a zoning case, if

46:57the existing owners wanted to move

46:58forward with a site plan that called for

47:01developing the site exactly the way it's

47:03zoned, they would have to do a new TIA

47:06and that TIA would come back and the

47:08town would say, "We are recommending an

47:10RCI and the owner would say, "We don't

47:12have the ability to deliver the rci

47:14based on the existing zoning because

47:17it's an off-site improvement that the

47:18town can't require." That's similarly

47:20the situation with NC DOT. And again,

47:23we're not here to bicker about that. As

47:25I've mentioned, it's something that my

47:26client would be interested in doing if

47:28they could control the outcome. They

47:29just can't control the out they can't

47:31control the outcome related to um the

47:35rci. And so Kevin, I'm going to have you

47:36come up momentarily just talk a little

47:38bit about the NC DOT side of the

47:39equation. I'm not trying to confuse

47:41this. I'm actually trying to keep it

47:42simple because it is a simple I think

47:43it's a pretty simple case. Uh, but I do

47:46think the conversations Kevin that you

47:48have had with DOT kind of weigh in on I

47:51think what the planning board's analysis

47:53could be in the case. So,

47:55>> hey, good evening Kevin Dean. Uh, Kimley

47:57Horn, 1070 South Main Street, Holly

47:59Springs. As Jason mentioned, this is

48:01very simple. Uses that very casually and

48:03then calls me up to discuss all this.

48:05So, it's very kind of him. But we have

48:07had a lot of discussions with the town

48:08in NC DOT on this. And as Jason's noted,

48:11we performed the analysis as both a full

48:13movement configuration and this rci

48:15super street configuration knowing as

48:17Jason has mentioned that that's the

48:19long-term vision for NC55. The

48:21constraint is the ability uh to get

48:24those improvements constructed. You

48:25you've seen a version of a concept uh

48:27that we've put together. It's worth

48:29noting that this concept only even shows

48:31a single U-turn bulb. Longterm, the plan

48:34is for would be for there to be two

48:36U-turn lanes at this location. So you

48:38can imagine the impacts being even more

48:40dramatic um than they're shown um on the

48:43concept. But we've had discussions with

48:45NC DOT who still believes that a full

48:47movement uh configuration is a viable

48:50interim alternative. Now we concede the

48:52project team concedes that long-term

48:54NC55 is identified as a super street

48:56corridor. No one's contesting that.

48:58There's no planned amendment to the CTP

49:00based on those things. The idea is that

49:03there's a good project that's making

49:05significant infrastructure improvements

49:08um that can be achieved um and that do

49:11set up the ability long-term for a

49:14comprehensive corridor improvement to

49:15come through and convert these things to

49:18a super street and that's what we're

49:19working towards now. Um the example that

49:21was given earlier on US64 is a good

49:23example of what the super street

49:24corridor is going to look like. The

49:26difference especially in between these

49:28two locations is that NC55 is obviously

49:32a fivelane undivided section today as

49:35opposed to this fourlane divided section

49:37that US64 is in the vicinity of

49:40Sweetwater and Jinx Road. So it's easier

49:42to build the U-turn lanes that are

49:43necessary. There were no businesses that

49:45lost access. There were no property

49:47owners that lost businesses because the

49:49U-turn bulb was constructed in those

49:51cases. different than here where Jason's

49:54already pointed out the the impacts

49:55associated with this. So, um we we've

49:59also found in our analysis and I think

50:01this is one of the things that NC do

50:03we've discussed with them um cumulative

50:06delays are still um in favor of the full

50:09movement scenario given the limitations

50:12on improvements that we can make. Um, if

50:14you consider the combined delays that

50:16would occur at the main Jesse and 55

50:19intersection and the U-turn bulb, the

50:21full movement scenario still operates

50:22better than that in the interim

50:24condition. So, we feel that these

50:26improvements are both substantial and

50:29also sufficient to mitigate our impacts

50:31and a viable alternative for the project

50:33to move forward with given the

50:36constraints on the corridor. So,

50:40>> thanks Kevin. So again, you know,

50:42essentially we're here tonight um asking

50:44for you all support of the case. Um

50:46asking for the ability to move forward

50:47with a a really strong development

50:49project. Uh this I think slide shows you

50:52the degree and the extent to which Jesse

50:54Drive will be extended through the site.

50:57Again, that comes at a significant cost,

50:58especially considering that crossing.

51:00This is a great project. I think

51:01everybody agrees this is exactly what

51:03needs to be located in this property at

51:06this time. We're just looking for the

51:07opportunity to continue the

51:09conversations with DOT and just asking

51:11that the planning board support our

51:12request and don't hamstring our ability

51:16to work with DOT on what that interim

51:18solution looks like. So with that, happy

51:20to answer any further questions you all

51:22might have.

51:24>> Thank you, Jason.

51:26>> Did did the um land owners

51:29that loving Lee told you to pound sand,

51:31did they did they give you an email or

51:33something? I know that staff said they

51:34hadn't seen those. Yeah, we we've got

51:36correspondents. We we reached out to

51:38them verbally but also sent letters and

51:40they just and they were not said said

51:42pound sand that sounds terrible. They

51:43basically said our business is doing

51:45great. We don't have a desire to

51:46relocate our business but we've got

51:48correspondence that I can share with

51:49them.

51:50>> Yeah.

51:51>> We don't have any representatives from

51:53those companies here today.

51:54>> Not to my knowledge.

51:59>> I have a question for

52:03you. I do have a question for staff. I'm

52:06I'm curious.

52:07>> Um I understand the traffic because I

52:09travel there all the time, but um why

52:11would we recommend an um improvement

52:15that cuts off access for existing

52:17businesses

52:22the long

52:25Jessica can follow up, but the long-term

52:27plan for 55 is a sixlane super street

52:32section. It's so this is implementing

52:36the long-term plan that we have for 55

52:40in this in this section. Um and

52:44>> include us purchasing these businesses

52:46as a town.

52:48>> Not necessarily. I mean the funding for

52:50converting it hasn't been done. Road

52:52improvements are typically done as

52:54development occurs and has to make the

52:56road improvements that are necessary.

52:58>> Well, further south there's a project is

52:59HL7 and they're doing this on

53:03Yes.

53:04>> Meaning that they're cutting off a

53:05business against the business

53:07>> neighborhoods and business

53:11out.

53:12>> Yeah. So it's not uncommon

53:17>> your question.

53:31When was the last time was updated?

53:36>> This intersection 2023.

53:39So it was shown as um

53:42I can't remember the the intersection

53:45was shown as at grade up until 2020. In

53:472020 it was amended to show a grade

53:50separated crossing and then in 2023 it

53:53was amended again to convert it to the

53:56um

53:57the rci.

53:59>> Yeah.

54:01Does the I know that the attorney pulled

54:03up some

54:05code or something about what the town

54:09can request

54:11isn't it in the town that the any

54:15application would have to

54:20>> Yes, but it the section did site the

54:24off-site improvement part of part of

54:26that. So, uh, however, this is a

54:28reasonzoning asking for an increase in

54:31permitted square footage. So, this is a

54:33legislative decision that the planning

54:36board can make the recommendation on

54:37council for it.

54:42>> Yeah. We're not sandbagging the project

54:46that it can't happen. It's just to go

54:48through the process to you know ensure

54:51that they've asked and have provided

54:55documentation of that just because of

54:57the difficulties

54:59coming back in folks forget what they've

55:02been told when they're trying to put

55:03something on the ground something gets

55:05on the ground people change

55:08um okay now we're coming back to do your

55:10your rci I don't remember what you're

55:12talking about um cost down the road

55:16things like that. So, we're not we're

55:18just asking for due diligence to go

55:20through that process and see if

55:21possible. Now,

55:23>> have a project for the entire

55:30>> section identified in one specifically

55:39theoretically

55:44construction of a full intersection.

55:47later.

55:53>> Yes. If DOT would come in and have

55:55money.

55:56>> Well, I mean, if with theorizing too,

55:59there's a 10,00 acre gorilla across the

56:03street that could eventually

56:06have these remaining parcels as part of

56:09land acquisition. Again, theorizing.

56:18they work together.

56:23>> But

56:26that's not the case.

56:26>> No.

56:27>> Today. So, any other questions?

56:32>> We we went with the interim and then

56:35later had to go with the full DOT. That

56:39seems like it would be possible to

56:41eventually do that. Who would be bearing

56:44the cost of the both of those? the

56:46initial and then when it had to be

56:49redone would that be the town the town

56:52or that would be the applicant or the

56:55first part would be the applicant the

56:56second where we

56:58>> that's the one uh the interim kind of

57:00what we are proposing is all going to be

57:02at the applicant's expense and I do want

57:04to note that the design that Kimley Horn

57:06has come up with for this intersection

57:09will allow it to be converted to an RCI

57:11when DOT comes along with a networkwide

57:14project for that improvement um and

57:15they'll be able ble to convert it

57:16without requiring additional right

57:18ofway. So basically the design that

57:20we're working on won't prohibit the rci

57:22from happening at that time. There will

57:24be sufficient right of way to facilitate

57:26that future improvement but that will

57:27definitely be at the cost of dot

57:31>> but to be clear that full movement

57:33intersection is my client's cost.

57:36>> Got it. And the time frame from when

57:38this to possibly when DOT would then

57:41say, okay, we need to go to the next.

57:43What are we thinking in terms of are we

57:45thinking 5 10 20?

57:46>> Yeah, it's anybody's guess at this

57:48point. There isn't a um a project that's

57:51it's not part of the stiff at this

57:52point. So it's it's highly

57:55unpredictable, which is why we're here,

57:56honestly. Um if there was a if there was

58:00an end in sight, it may influence

58:01behavior, but right now it's all

58:04anybody's guess.

58:05>> Okay. So as the town we know we want it

58:08done. It's written as such that it will

58:10that's what the plan is eventually this

58:12explain but there's no time frame for

58:16Is that right?

58:20Is that

58:21>> is that right? That this is what we

58:24eventually it's written that this is

58:25what the plan is. This is what 55 is

58:27going to change into. It will be the six

58:28lane super street but there's no time

58:30frame for that. It's just written as

58:32such.

58:33>> That's correct. Okay. Got it.

58:35transportation plan doesn't assign Tom

58:38for completion.

58:40>> Thank you.

58:42>> Yes.

58:44Engineer talk a little about the level

58:46of service between the

58:52>> absolutely part of Jason's uh simple uh

58:55note that he had.

58:57Yes. So the uh the full so the the

59:00delays that I will be referencing and I

59:03think generally aligning with what staff

59:05was referencing earlier are based on the

59:08um the improvements that were considered

59:10in our traffic study. Um and so the full

59:13movement intersection would operate at

59:14level service C in the AM peak hour and

59:17it would operate at level service F in

59:20the PMP hour. Um, as you might expect,

59:23the if the intersection were initially

59:26constructed as a super street, um, that

59:29one intersection of NC55 at Jesse Drive

59:32is going to operate at level service C

59:34in both peak hours. But the U-turn

59:36operates at level service

59:40C in the AM peak hour and at level

59:43service F in the PM peak hour. So when

59:47we look at the cumulative delays if you

59:49because a super street as as you all

59:51know basically turns one intersection

59:53into multiple intersections. So instead

59:55of everything happening at one place you

59:57have some turns that happen at the main

59:59intersection and then the Uturns

1:00:01accommodate the left turns that were

1:00:02otherwise prohibited. Um so super

1:00:05streets turn one intersection into two.

1:00:07So when we're looking at delays, if we

1:00:09want to be balanced in how we compare

1:00:10delays, we're going to look at the delay

1:00:12of the one single full movement

1:00:14intersection and then the combined delay

1:00:16between the two new intersections that

1:00:18are created when you have a super

1:00:20street. Um so if we look at the combined

1:00:23delays for the super street, still a C

1:00:26in the AM peak hour, but F in the PM

1:00:29peak hour and with longer cumulative

1:00:31delays than the full movement scenario.

1:00:35Can you talk a little bit about the

1:00:37pedestrian

1:00:40having

1:00:42>> is it pedestrian?

1:00:44>> Sure. So um so u certainly um

1:00:50uh as an intersection uh staff has

1:00:52already noted that um research does

1:00:54indicate that super street intersections

1:00:55have a better safety uh record um in

1:00:59terms of number and severity of crashes

1:01:00potentially than um than full movement

1:01:02intersections. And that again goes back

1:01:04to the limited number of movements that

1:01:06are happening. Um, so you have the

1:01:09ability, so if you were to cross

1:01:11pedestrians at a super street, we call

1:01:13it a Zcrossing because you've got to

1:01:15cross at one signal, work your way

1:01:16through the middle of the intersection,

1:01:18and then cross on the opposite side.

1:01:20Whereas the full movement intersections

1:01:21you're all accustomed to generally

1:01:23walking across, it's just one straight

1:01:25shot across the major street. Um, in

1:01:27this location, there isn't any sidewalk

1:01:29on the opposite side of NC55 at this

1:01:31time, at least. And so, there's not

1:01:32really a good opportunity for

1:01:33pedestrians to cross east to west at

1:01:37this intersection regardless of what

1:01:39scenario were to be um, constructed. Um,

1:01:42but certainly long-term, I would expect

1:01:45that the town is going to push for

1:01:47pedestrian accommodations regardless of

1:01:48whatever the scenario is. You're seeing

1:01:50that um, down at Veridia as part of the

1:01:53HL07 project. there's going to be

1:01:55sidewalks and crossings prepared there.

1:01:57Um, but again, that's another good

1:01:59example of interim full movement

1:02:01configuration that NC DOT converts as

1:02:03part of one of their own projects

1:02:05because even Vidia wasn't going out and

1:02:07converting that outright

1:02:10as part of their initial project.

1:02:17Questions for

1:02:21Thank you.

1:02:27Now we will move to public comment.

1:02:31We have anyone signed up for public

1:02:32comment?

1:02:50All right, we've already heard from

1:02:51Jason Baron. Thank you, sir.

1:02:55So Paxton Holler Strat strategic real

1:02:58estate

1:02:59>> he's with the answer question and we've

1:03:02also heard from Kevin Dean Kimley Horn.

1:03:05So now we will close public comment

1:03:09and

1:03:12bring it to the board for discussion and

1:03:13possible motion.

1:03:19First, it's great to see a pod revived

1:03:21after 20 years.

1:03:23>> That yes,

1:03:24>> that's a, you know, updating. They want

1:03:26more to increase and make consistent

1:03:28with. I like that. I mean, as I'm

1:03:31looking at this, I completely understand

1:03:33the super street design. I see the

1:03:37benefits to it and it is staff's job to

1:03:42take plans to take ordinances and

1:03:45implement those through these requests.

1:03:51But then seeing the practicality of what

1:03:53that request means gives me a bit of

1:03:55pause because that does cut off some

1:03:59significant driveways there.

1:04:06I like I was wondering if we knew what

1:04:10the poss like if they have people ready

1:04:13probably should have asked some material

1:04:15like ready to go or is this just going

1:04:17to sit around because I like the fact

1:04:20that we're going to have some

1:04:21non-residential tax base there and some

1:04:24improvement to what is existing at the

1:04:26moment understanding that it's not our

1:04:28ideal and I am always loaded to cut off

1:04:32to a land owner and their land. I just

1:04:35really bothers me if they're not in

1:04:37favor. I don't feel that's right. So, I

1:04:40just I would rather have if if the

1:04:44option for me is, hey, I'm going to give

1:04:46you some tax base that doesn't require

1:04:47as much of your services. So, you get to

1:04:49keep more of your revenue as a town

1:04:50>> and it's going to be really slow at 5:30

1:04:54>> and it already is and it's going to

1:04:56improve some things um

1:04:59because we are growing and that whole

1:05:01area is growing. Um and and it just is

1:05:04what it is. I'm more apt to say I would

1:05:07rather take what I can get now with them

1:05:10to still work with it like to still put

1:05:11that in the language and they need to

1:05:13share their correspondence. But I'm I'm

1:05:16for us trying to get some employment

1:05:18here more and um not limit that. That's

1:05:21just kind of where I'm at.

1:05:26>> Since you raised the issue of my client

1:05:29um I think would tell me I need to stand

1:05:31up and say they are ready to move

1:05:32forward post haste with uh the entirety

1:05:34of the development including the light

1:05:36industrial at the back. So they're ready

1:05:38to rock and roll.

1:05:43>> And I will add to that that

1:05:45fully understanding

1:05:48staff and frankos point of view. Fully

1:05:50understand the property owner as well

1:05:57cutting off asset access without any

1:05:59agreement with the neighboring property

1:06:00to do some sort of service street if you

1:06:03will um access.

1:06:07I mean, I would more than likely not be

1:06:09in favor of that as well if I was a

1:06:11property. Um, without an alternative,

1:06:15>> without an alternative. Um,

1:06:18that's my point of view. I noticed they

1:06:20did use Jinx Road as the RCI. Wow, that

1:06:23one is a bad example, but that that one

1:06:26it's better than what they had. That's

1:06:27true. That's true. Um,

1:06:31but that is a big concern of mine is I

1:06:32do understand the property owner's point

1:06:34of view. um without any alternative to

1:06:37what was ris

1:06:39which now Harrison Spence in the propane

1:06:41company obviously they're going to need

1:06:43access of some sort

1:06:48and not want to be cut off I can

1:06:50understand

1:07:03>> you're recommending approval Is that a

1:07:05>> Is that a motion?

1:07:06>> Was that a motion?

1:07:06>> Oh, I want to hear from the rest, but

1:07:08I'll make a motion that agree that come.

1:07:11>> No, I agree with you, Mark. I mean, the

1:07:12fact that it's been said that this is a

1:07:16viable option to then move forward and

1:07:18change it as needed. If we have this

1:07:20working, as Christie said, we can bring

1:07:22in more business, increase that tax

1:07:24base.

1:07:27With respect to what the town is doing,

1:07:29absolutely.

1:07:31this seems an option especially with

1:07:34them being willing to move forward right

1:07:36now

1:07:38that it seems like they could be doing

1:07:40>> I'll add to it as well the Jesse drive

1:07:43connection that needs to happen and this

1:07:45builds it out that much further and

1:07:47we're got to get pretty close

1:07:53as well

1:07:59>> staff

1:08:02I just wanted to um

1:08:06state that there

1:08:08are other conditions. It wasn't just the

1:08:12full um intersection.

1:08:18I think Russell did you want to come up

1:08:24through those?

1:08:28Yeah, I can provide some clarification

1:08:30on one point. One is if they're putting

1:08:31in a traffic signal, I don't care if

1:08:32it's an RCI or full movement, they're

1:08:34going to accommodate pedestrians. Um,

1:08:36it's going to have to accommodate

1:08:37pedestrians across 55. Um, the other

1:08:39thing is, um, we have a concern

1:08:41regardless of whether it's an RCI or

1:08:43full moon intersection that they're

1:08:44delaying traffic on NC5. Um, staff and

1:08:47DOT did ask for an additional southbound

1:08:49through lane. Um, so that's another

1:08:52thing I think that's been lost in the

1:08:53conversation that we need to think

1:08:54about. I mean, that's not cutting off

1:08:56access to businesses. Um, it does

1:08:58require additional off-site rightway.

1:09:00So, that may be a discussion point, but

1:09:02that was something that was important to

1:09:03reducing delay on 55, especially if you

1:09:06go with the full movement intersection

1:09:07versus the rci.

1:09:10>> What's the level of service comparison

1:09:13today compared to what

1:09:17>> today? There's And that's that I mean

1:09:19that's something to think about. There's

1:09:20no delay today because there's no

1:09:21intersection today.

1:09:22>> Oh, sorry.

1:09:23>> Yeah. [laughter]

1:09:24Right. Right. Right. Yeah. So, so once

1:09:27you introduce, and that's something to

1:09:28think about, once you introduce an

1:09:29intersection on NC55, you're introducing

1:09:31delay at that location. So, so the goal

1:09:35is to try and minimize delay to through

1:09:36traffic at that location. Obviously,

1:09:38overall delay is important because it's

1:09:39delayed to all drivers, even on the side

1:09:41street, but the delay to 55, um, you

1:09:44have to consider once you stop traffic

1:09:46on 55. Um they are providing an

1:09:49additional through lane across their

1:09:50frontage um northbound, but they're not

1:09:52providing that additional lane

1:09:54southbound um which was one of the other

1:09:56considerations uh during the analysis.

1:10:05>> So you you're saying that that's really

1:10:08important even if the super street isn't

1:10:11the southbound street on the other side

1:10:13of 55.

1:10:15>> Correct. Yeah. I mean the the analysis I

1:10:17mean what was done on the north side of

1:10:1955 Vidia they're adding an additional

1:10:20through lane

1:10:22>> for that for that intersection

1:10:23>> house mixed up sorry

1:10:25>> just say Vidia side and this side

1:10:26that'll help

1:10:27>> yeah so so what's being done on the

1:10:28Bidia frontage there and in Edge 0007

1:10:30additional lanes are being provided but

1:10:33the concern is there is a gap in 55 here

1:10:36where there's not an additional lane

1:10:38southbound

1:10:38>> toward

1:10:40>> correct toward Vidia or whatever right

1:10:43coming down that way they're talking

1:10:44about

1:10:44>> yeah so that would be Just the question

1:10:46to ask is the applicant, it sounds like

1:10:47what the applicant's proposing is they

1:10:49don't want to do the rci, they want to

1:10:50do the full movement. Um, we still don't

1:10:52have documentation

1:10:54from that owner saying that they won't

1:10:57sell them the property or they have

1:10:58concerns with that, which I understand.

1:11:00We also talked about alternatives for

1:11:02moving the U-turn further north where we

1:11:04wouldn't impact that business or putting

1:11:05a U-turn to the south and doing a

1:11:06reverse rci. So, we talked about a

1:11:08number of options with NC DOT and the

1:11:10applicant which weren't explained

1:11:11tonight, but but if we're looking at

1:11:13what's in the transportation plan, what

1:11:14was shown in the feasibility study, um

1:11:16it does put that impact on the front of

1:11:18that business like we saw. Um so,

1:11:21>> won't that be the same for the

1:11:22southbound properties or side

1:11:24properties?

1:11:26>> Yes. So, the U-turn as far as the U-turn

1:11:28goes

1:11:29>> either either way. I guess with the

1:11:31Yeah, either way.

1:11:32>> Yes. Okay. So, the U-turn to the south

1:11:33would be in front of the Page Two

1:11:34Holdings property, which is currently

1:11:36not developed. Um, and they've been

1:11:38looking at trying to move something

1:11:40forward for for a long time now, and

1:11:42they've had difficulty um for various

1:11:44reasons trying to assemble property to

1:11:47make that work. Yeah.

1:11:54regarding the other conditions besides

1:11:56the RPI um

1:12:01accept those conditions. Let's talk

1:12:03about those.

1:12:09>> No, we it's an offsite improvement that

1:12:11again we don't control doing that

1:12:12southbound. Again, as you heard the

1:12:14frontage improvements, no problem at all

1:12:16going to be making those. It's just on

1:12:18the opposite side of the street, we

1:12:19don't control our own destiny over

1:12:20there. and and Mr. Dean can answer

1:12:22questions associated with the analysis

1:12:24that's been done if you're interested in

1:12:26in hearing about that.

1:12:32>> Yes, I think that's been our concern

1:12:33with anything really on the west side

1:12:35that even to accommodate the So, there's

1:12:37two southbound left turn lanes being

1:12:39proposed on to Jesse Drive. um which I

1:12:42would contest aren't explicitly needed

1:12:44because of our project, but it's the

1:12:45long like trying to work towards

1:12:48accommodating our traffic and kind of

1:12:49the long-term vision for Jesse. So,

1:12:51that's not um having to be reworked. Um

1:12:54but even the widening that we've been

1:12:55showing to make those improvements fit

1:12:57has been done asymmetrically and like

1:13:02disproportionately affected our side of

1:13:03the street just so that we can fit in

1:13:05the lanes as much as we can. So, we're

1:13:06already doing what we can to push more

1:13:08of the widening towards our project side

1:13:10instead of the Vidia side where we can.

1:13:13Um, but adding a third southbound

1:13:15through lane just you've heard continues

1:13:17to push out and require right away. Um,

1:13:20and so that it's just another discussion

1:13:22to have with property owners that that

1:13:24you've heard some about. So, and the

1:13:26delays we referenced earlier, none of

1:13:28those included a third southbound lane.

1:13:30So the the the delay comparisons that

1:13:32we've been providing are based on just

1:13:34two southbound lanes in either the rci

1:13:36or the full movement configurations.

1:13:49And I just wanted to make it were you

1:13:52saying as far as the site access onto

1:13:55Jesse Common Drive, you're okay with um

1:13:59the staff recommendations for those?

1:14:03Not sure what's the nature of the

1:14:05question

1:14:07>> as far as the um

1:14:09>> constructing the additional

1:14:11through lane on our side of the a of 55.

1:14:14>> Well, on Jesse now I'm talking about

1:14:16Jesse Drive because at site access three

1:14:19there were also some

1:14:22language that was different from yours.

1:14:25So I know this is like

1:14:28we're going

1:14:32>> one of the one of the other places that

1:14:34we're struggling um as a project team to

1:14:36make site access and circulation work or

1:14:38the references at Jesse Drive and site

1:14:40access C. I can go back. Sorry. Okay.

1:14:43Um,

1:14:45so if you're moving along Jesse Drive,

1:14:48you have um from west to east, you come

1:14:51off NC55, you're traveling east on Jesse

1:14:53Drive. The first driveway you get to is

1:14:55a right in right out driveway, which is

1:14:57labeled as site driveway B, I believe.

1:15:00Um, the next driveway you come to is

1:15:02site access C. And what we have been

1:15:04working with staff and DOT to figure out

1:15:06is a way to get adequate access um for

1:15:10folks getting into and out of both sides

1:15:13of the project. Um Jason, you correct me

1:15:16if I'm wrong. When this project was

1:15:17originally approved back in 2006, that

1:15:20was a site access C was a full movement

1:15:22driveway. Um we have now conceded that

1:15:26it might not be able to be a full

1:15:27movement driveway long term because of

1:15:29the median brake spacing. What we're

1:15:31concerned about, frankly, is that folks

1:15:33who are in the north side of Jesse

1:15:35Drive, who eventually want to go east on

1:15:38Jesse Drive towards Horton Park, um the

1:15:40conditions, as written, would prohibit

1:15:42left turns out of that side of the

1:15:45project. And so then for anybody who

1:15:47wanted to get back east on Jesse Drive

1:15:49from the north side, presumably where

1:15:51the grocery store might be, um they

1:15:54might have to go out onto NC55 and make

1:15:57a U-turn to then come back to go east as

1:16:00opposed to just turning left out of that

1:16:03side of the project to go east back

1:16:04towards Horton Park. So, in discussions

1:16:07with staff, we've recommended a right-in

1:16:09driveway on NC55 south of Jesse Drive to

1:16:13help folks who want to go north from

1:16:15that side. That would we no longer need

1:16:17a left turn at site driveway C out of

1:16:20the south side of the project. Um, but

1:16:23the way the condition is written, I

1:16:24believe it says that left turns would

1:16:26left and through movements would be

1:16:28prohibited from both sides of Jesse

1:16:30Drive at site driveway C, which

1:16:32dramatically impacts our project's

1:16:34ability to get folks from the commercial

1:16:36side. We may want to go back to Horton

1:16:38Park and now we're putting trips back

1:16:40onto NC55

1:16:42just to go east on the Jesse Drive

1:16:44connection that we all think is super

1:16:45important. So for us, um I think a lot

1:16:48of them um are agreeable when we're

1:16:51talking about left turn lanes along

1:16:52Jesse Drive. I think a lot of those make

1:16:54sense, but there are still some where we

1:16:56think that the configuration that's been

1:16:59discussed in some of our zoning

1:17:00conditions. I think on balance helps

1:17:02site access and circulation

1:17:05in totality at least in the interim

1:17:07condition.

1:17:09>> So that's not sight access driveway C.

1:17:12Is that how far is that section?

1:17:16>> 650 700 ft.

1:17:21>> Those are not signal. Correct. Just out

1:17:24on 55. That is correct. Correct.

1:17:26>> They're just going back and forth a

1:17:28little bit like Frogger. I mean, sorry.

1:17:31You know what I mean? It's busy.

1:17:33>> Yes.

1:17:34>> But they would be able to do it. You

1:17:36just want them to be able to do it.

1:17:37>> Yes, ma'am. We'd like them to have the

1:17:38option to do that.

1:17:56There's a lot of

1:18:07may want or don't want like 15 of

1:18:11I was just thinking that Mark I wouldn't

1:18:12even know how to start to make a

1:18:13recommenation.

1:18:19>> Well, I have a question. So, in the long

1:18:22run, when Jessie Drive is connected east

1:18:26to west, right to all the way out west,

1:18:30all the way out east,

1:18:34if that site is developed, if this is

1:18:37all developed, they will

1:18:40people who live on the east side won't

1:18:42be able to make that lecture that

1:18:44they're working. So, nobody's

1:18:46residential over there, but in theory,

1:18:47if you're working, right, because

1:18:49there's retail on one side and retail on

1:18:51the other side. So, like if you're

1:18:53shopping on one side, you're at the

1:18:54grocery store and you wanted to go

1:18:56across to get a sandwich, you'd have to

1:18:58go back out on 55 and then come back in.

1:19:02>> But that's only to your point, that's

1:19:04only one

1:19:05>> that's only one of the issues.

1:19:06>> I was just trying on that. So, I'm

1:19:08trying to process that.

1:19:09>> Yeah. Yeah.

1:19:09>> So, that's going to delay 55 even

1:19:11further,

1:19:12>> right?

1:19:16>> I don't know if you

1:19:18>> It feels like it would it feels like it

1:19:20would

1:19:21start.

1:19:22>> But that's that's the thing too is as a

1:19:24customer like I don't want to

1:19:27>> tour the business. If I could add some

1:19:29because I don't think this has been

1:19:30said. The reason why that recommendation

1:19:33is made is because Jesse Drive is a

1:19:36future fourlane median divided third

1:19:39fair that's will connect 55 to 1010. is

1:19:42going to carry a decent amount of

1:19:43traffic and the [clears throat]

1:19:45intersection spacing is shorter from

1:19:48from 55 to this what they would like to

1:19:51be full movement

1:19:53or at least allow left turns from that

1:19:55north side of the development than what

1:19:56our ordinance would typically recommend.

1:19:58Am I stating that correctly?

1:20:04>> Yeah. And we we've had discussions again

1:20:06with NC DOT and the concern was

1:20:09ultimately we want NC DOT to take over

1:20:11Jesse Drive. They maintain an existing

1:20:13piece of it. But the way it works with

1:20:16their with their road maintenance is

1:20:18typically the town accepts a piece of a

1:20:20road in the interim and once it's fully

1:20:23connected, NC DOT could potentially take

1:20:25that over as a state road. But in order

1:20:27for that to happen, they have to give

1:20:29design approval to that roadway. and

1:20:32they have already said that they would

1:20:33not allow left turn out of that access

1:20:35because it doesn't meet their spacing

1:20:36requirements. So, we wanted that in the

1:20:38zoning conditions to make it clear

1:20:40because we don't want to jeopardize the

1:20:42town's ability in the future for the

1:20:45state to accept that road for

1:20:46maintenance because it doesn't meet

1:20:48their criteria. So, quite simply, and I

1:20:50understand the applicant's hardship with

1:20:52that, but um if if you know there was a

1:20:56way around it early on, we we tried to

1:20:58find a way around it. Um, we talked

1:21:00about an additional two-lane stream

1:21:02crossing to the north to provide

1:21:04connectivity between the parcels to get

1:21:05back out beyond the stream, which

1:21:07obviously that's got cost and permitting

1:21:10implications for something like that.

1:21:12Um, I think even brought up the idea of

1:21:13a a roundabout at that location. Um, but

1:21:16it's still again it's close to the

1:21:18signal and there'd be issues with that.

1:21:20So, so we we tried everything we could

1:21:22think of to come up with a solution. And

1:21:24when this was originally heard 20 years

1:21:26ago, um, a lot was different 20 years

1:21:29ago. Um, I had less knee and back

1:21:32problems 20 years ago, um, when I was

1:21:34standing in front of this this planning

1:21:35board. Um, so, you know, it's just it's

1:21:38I think times have just changed and

1:21:40that's what's made this case so so

1:21:42difficult as we've dealt with changes in

1:21:44the transportation plan, changes in

1:21:46traffic out there on 55. A lot of the

1:21:48developments come forward. Um, so it's

1:21:50just it's not the same plan as it was.

1:21:52It sounds like there, yeah, there are

1:21:53minor changes to what the original

1:21:55proposal for the land use was, but there

1:21:57have been major changes um on the

1:22:00transportation network in the town, in

1:22:02our ordinances, in our transportation

1:22:04plan um that we're having to account

1:22:06for.

1:22:09>> That's good to know. That is very good

1:22:11to know about the requirements for the

1:22:13DOT taking over the road. So certainly

1:22:16the town doesn't need to take over.

1:22:18Thanks for that.

1:22:20Any

1:22:23other questions or maybe suggestions on

1:22:27how to move forward

1:22:30requirement? Requirement.

1:22:38>> Are you sure a roundabout won't work? It

1:22:41>> would [laughter] think it would solve

1:22:43that left turn problem.

1:22:59Maybe we want to make a motion one by

1:23:01one or to your point. I mean, I know

1:23:04that's going to stretch it right on out,

1:23:05guys, but I mean,

1:23:08>> you could go through and discuss them

1:23:10and then save all the ones that

1:23:12>> could either way. You know,

1:23:14>> that's a good idea, Amanda.

1:23:20transportation recommendations

1:23:24that staff is recommending the strike I

1:23:28guess

1:23:29>> right this is the t staff recommended

1:23:32conditions and we

1:23:37>> yeah we we took the applicant conditions

1:23:40and then

1:23:42>> put our recommendations over

1:23:59um

1:24:01the super street

1:24:04that term right it works it worked on 64

1:24:09I think

1:24:11because on the other side there were

1:24:14existing businesses.

1:24:21>> There was a large

1:24:22>> and it was divided so they both they

1:24:23could go into the median kind of area

1:24:24which they did. Yeah,

1:24:25>> I went into that.

1:24:27>> So this one, our big issue is the

1:24:30existing businesses on that side.

1:24:46to have access to

1:24:49I don't know now we don't know when this

1:24:51can be done or not get

1:24:55so there is no timeline

1:25:00but on the long run

1:25:02that's what the concept is yeah there's

1:25:06just a lot of it if there's

1:25:09controlled by an entity that owns it and

1:25:11they get to choose whether or not they

1:25:12sell and those conditions If

1:25:14>> they move, that's going to cost them

1:25:16two.

1:25:16>> That's not Yeah, that's not knowable. I

1:25:18mean, that's just it is what it is.

1:25:22>> Can I approach Mr. Chair? Uh, and so the

1:25:25applicants recommended conditions, the

1:25:26conditions that we have proposed, um,

1:25:29has been part of a lengthy process of

1:25:31collaborating with the town staff like

1:25:33we always do. um what we have proposed

1:25:36delivers significant infrastructure as

1:25:39part of a development project that um my

1:25:42client knows that with the access that

1:25:44we've proposed will be commercially

1:25:46viable and the concerns that you heard

1:25:48related to having that lefthand turn

1:25:50movement you know being able to do this

1:25:52the through I mean you hit the nail on

1:25:53the head it's the ability to make sure

1:25:56that what gets developed here is in fact

1:25:57commercially viable it's less important

1:25:59for the industrial side of the equation

1:26:01but certainly an important component to

1:26:03the retail detail side of the equation.

1:26:04So, I just want to in terms of how I

1:26:07might be able to help you all simplify

1:26:09the effort that you're reviewing, the

1:26:10conditions that we have come up with and

1:26:12the vast majority of the conditions that

1:26:14you see before you tonight are

1:26:15conditions we all agree on. Um, but what

1:26:17the applicant has proposed allows this

1:26:19project to move forward, ensures its

1:26:21commercial viability, will maintain

1:26:22safety, and will deliver significant

1:26:24infrastructure improvements.

1:26:27>> I have a question if you were the

1:26:28traffic engineer. Just to clarify on the

1:26:31north side of Jesse Drive between

1:26:35driveway C and driveway D.

1:26:42That's a stream. So that's the only

1:26:43connectivity from east and northeast

1:26:47would be Jesse Drive. I'm just trying to

1:26:49sort of figure out how to

1:26:51if there's a way to get somebody from

1:26:52the northeast side to the southeast side

1:26:54without getting on Highway 55.

1:26:56>> Yeah. And I think that's

1:26:58And I don't I'm not I'm just not seeing

1:27:01it. But

1:27:01>> no, and that's and that's been our

1:27:03constraint is finding a way to get folks

1:27:05kind of back and forth. And we we've

1:27:08conceded that the right in right out

1:27:10driveway site driveway F south of Jesse

1:27:14Drive which was not previously was not

1:27:16originally recommended was something

1:27:18that we identified in coordination with

1:27:19staff and DOT because at least if

1:27:21somebody wanted to go south to north and

1:27:23there was a concern about that left turn

1:27:25crossing it'd be a short admittedly

1:27:27short drive but still back out on 55 to

1:27:30then turn back on Jesse Drive. That's

1:27:33that north to south movement is the one

1:27:34that we can't figure out a way.

1:27:36>> I don't see a I don't see a way around

1:27:38it either.

1:27:39>> I agree. We'd also note that median

1:27:41brake spacing along

1:27:43uh internal streets through Vidia

1:27:46doesn't meet NC DOT median brake

1:27:48guidelines either and we've been able to

1:27:50work with DOT on that project to have

1:27:52substandard median brake spacing. Not

1:27:54saying that they want that to be a

1:27:55unilateral application of their medium

1:27:57break spacing, but there are projects

1:27:59within a rock's throw of the project

1:28:01that have a similar.

1:28:03>> So the president's already been set

1:28:04close by.

1:28:05>> Very close by.

1:28:06>> Yes, sir.

1:28:06>> Okay. All right. Thank you.

1:28:14>> Great question. Yeah.

1:28:19other discussions, questions,

1:28:22recommendations.

1:28:27>> So, I think um as I read through this,

1:28:31my biggest concern was

1:28:34um

1:28:35impacting property owners that don't

1:28:38want to be impacted and don't want to

1:28:40sell.

1:28:41How can we

1:28:43get additional tax revenue that is not

1:28:46as um

1:28:49heavy usage on our dollars like with

1:28:51schools and whatnot because of the uses

1:28:53that's really important improving a

1:28:55situation and I want that to be

1:28:56successful. I mean my I'm always about

1:28:58the consumer and I I get it in CDOT and

1:29:01maybe that's maybe let the council

1:29:03address it like you know how important

1:29:04is it? Do you you know other states

1:29:07counties and cities own streets you know

1:29:10it And I'm just saying maybe we can't do

1:29:13that, but in the interest of does it

1:29:15sound like it's a good project overall?

1:29:17Do we think it would add to the area and

1:29:20help improve and mitigate some of what

1:29:23they're adding? I would be more um

1:29:26inclined to recommend that we go forward

1:29:30in that manner and then let council talk

1:29:32about hey this isn't meeting NC do's

1:29:35because I can't answer that and I I feel

1:29:38like we're the planning board which is

1:29:40different than what they're what they're

1:29:43thinking and considering. So

1:29:45>> on the land use side like the

1:29:47reasonzoning for increased square

1:29:49footage and building height like yes um

1:29:52I'm I'm just trying to figure out how do

1:29:54you make this recommendation and this is

1:29:56out loud again as Sarah said this is

1:29:59just us right

1:30:02>> is it

1:30:03>> recommending approval with access

1:30:06scenario one

1:30:09and we're good with the staff's

1:30:11conditions along Jeffy drive I don't

1:30:14know I don't know how to clean this

1:30:19>> mark you take a stab at it

1:30:20>> I'm not with the recommendations or

1:30:24There's it's like pages 10 through 14 on

1:30:27our report. Um

1:30:31>> Oh, I had fun.

1:30:32>> Yeah, this great presentation.

1:30:34>> Yes, I have fun doing the staff report.

1:30:37So,

1:30:38>> I think that's why we gonna have to

1:30:39break it out though because if we do one

1:30:43and vote for approval of that, but then

1:30:46we accept the town's recommendations,

1:30:48but that's not allowing

1:30:51that's having the dedicated

1:30:55>> because that they don't want

1:30:58>> well so many of her recommendations are

1:31:00about the Jesse drive say act access a b

1:31:05recommend

1:31:08scenario one again thinking out loud

1:31:12but then we've talked about we like we

1:31:13saw the TIA and the staff's markup of

1:31:16like along Jesse drive you know no

1:31:18upturn here and there like we know

1:31:20that's inconvenient but we get it that's

1:31:22DOT recommendations to be consistent

1:31:24with

1:31:26getting them to take over that road.

1:31:28That's

1:31:32>> J.

1:31:33>> Um well, as far as the asterisk, maybe

1:31:36take it. It indicates the applicant and

1:31:38the T staff condition is the same but

1:31:40with different language.

1:31:43Um

1:31:45and most of those as far as asterisks

1:31:49that were added

1:31:52You know, these were

1:31:55the same thing, but just additional

1:31:57language from TI staff.

1:32:03Maybe go through through that because

1:32:05there are several with the asterisks

1:32:08that

1:32:09are on here that just are different

1:32:12language.

1:32:17Maybe we could

1:32:20Which of these conditions do you agree

1:32:22with?

1:32:28>> I thought I heard him say that he wanted

1:32:30us to approve their language.

1:32:32>> Okay.

1:32:34Not even the

1:32:37>> You're asking a lawyer if he is going to

1:32:39be [laughter]

1:32:40seriously right now. This he's like this

1:32:42just language. He's like, "Excuse me.

1:32:43That's like what I do." Jason's just

1:32:45playing [laughter] lawyer earlier.

1:32:49>> [gasps]

1:32:50>> I'm guessing that it matters, right?

1:32:52Like I'm just saying.

1:32:54>> No, I see. Thank you, June, for pointing

1:32:55that out as a reminder. I I see that.

1:32:58And it seems like it just comes in and

1:33:00gets more specific with uh the language

1:33:03in those.

1:33:07I mean, there's several with the aster

1:33:09and then,

1:33:11you know, I think that's,

1:33:15you know, it's just adding

1:33:21on Jess

1:33:24those conditions.

1:33:29I mean, we we gave those last month to

1:33:32the applicant to review.

1:33:41Refresh my memory on the south. This is

1:33:43off of that the southbound u property

1:33:46for the the page holdings. They reached

1:33:48out to them and they're not

1:33:51can't come to an agreement at this time

1:33:52as well.

1:33:54Because I I realize it's offsite.

1:33:57>> Yeah, we haven't explored in great

1:33:59detail the discussions with the property

1:34:01owners to the south page two holdings.

1:34:02Um it's really the north side that has

1:34:04be, you know, created the bottleneck for

1:34:06us.

1:34:07>> Yeah.

1:34:08and we're happy to work with

1:34:09transportation staff on the specific

1:34:12language adjustments that you see in the

1:34:14staff report. Um, and we can do that

1:34:16after this meeting and before we get to

1:34:18council. I think there's I think it may

1:34:20be more cumbersome than needs to be if

1:34:23we try to tackle that right now. And I

1:34:24will tell you there's there's a handful

1:34:26of things here that we don't see any

1:34:27issue with and we'll just follow up with

1:34:28T staff and get that hammered out before

1:34:30we get to council.

1:34:31>> Thank you.

1:34:31>> Yeah, I mean I think that's an asterisk

1:34:34concern. I mean it says right on it that

1:34:37the same but different the same but

1:34:41different similar you know so

1:34:46that is something that

1:34:48some of those could be hammered out

1:34:50pretty easily you know that we can move

1:34:52through but again

1:34:55understand why we wouldn't want to

1:34:56blanket approve everything if we feel

1:34:58that we need to go through

1:35:00each one.

1:35:04>> Well, I think my perspective, I'm in

1:35:07favor of scenario one. And I think

1:35:11between now and town council, there's

1:35:13going to be quite a bit of discussion

1:35:15and work uh probably on both sides

1:35:17because um

1:35:19>> it's got to be worked out before then.

1:35:21>> Yes,

1:35:21>> that would be my insight.

1:35:25the full section

1:35:26>> full movement

1:35:27>> full movement and that would be

1:35:29>> I think also that they need that that we

1:35:31two things that I would I would agree

1:35:33with your

1:35:35if if you're putting forth um I would

1:35:39agree with that but I would say that

1:35:40they need to share with staff the uh

1:35:43communication they've had with those

1:35:44property owners to say hey here's what

1:35:46they said I think that they need to

1:35:48agree with staff to get on the asterric

1:35:51items and address them before they go to

1:35:54council. And then again, I'm just trying

1:35:56to represent the role here. I don't feel

1:35:58like I can speak to that whole what is

1:36:00and isn't allowable, what the the town

1:36:03will accept and NCO2 won't, right? I

1:36:06don't feel like I can speak to that, but

1:36:07I do think I think I can get on board

1:36:10with number one and then let the council

1:36:12address that issue. Feel like that's

1:36:14their purview.

1:36:16>> Yeah, I think I think moving this

1:36:17project forward is the thing to do at

1:36:19this moment. and

1:36:20>> given what we're

1:36:20>> and then let them let let

1:36:24>> hammered out between now and accounts.

1:36:27>> That would be my recommendation. That's

1:36:29my recommendation. And I'll make a

1:36:31recommendation. I'll make a motion to

1:36:34we'll start right there to approve item

1:36:36number one, the public hearing possible

1:36:38motion regarding resol case 26Z1 Jesse

1:36:41Pud Drive as presented by the applicant.

1:36:47That will be my motion. Do we have a

1:36:48second?

1:36:50>> We have a second. We have a motion is

1:36:51second. All in favor say I. I.

1:36:54>> All that oppose.

1:36:55>> Motion carries.

1:36:58Uh

1:36:59>> oh.

1:37:00>> Hey, you know how the Supreme Court like

1:37:02they have like consenting, you know,

1:37:05confirming opinions but just have

1:37:07different reasoning. Can we submit

1:37:08something like that to town staff that

1:37:10says like yes, I voted in favor of this

1:37:12and I agree but also like

1:37:14>> consider things.

1:37:16>> I wanted the communication parts,

1:37:20>> right? I thought Yeah, I wanted that to

1:37:21be

1:37:21>> I thought that was going to be part of

1:37:22>> I mean, I know they'll listen to this in

1:37:24the end. They they'll hear us.

1:37:26>> Yeah.

1:37:27>> Yeah. Because

1:37:35>> Yes.

1:37:36>> I want to tell them to come back in,

1:37:39>> right? Because I

1:37:41>> it was as I would think before Yeah.

1:37:44I did want I didn't want those on there.

1:37:46I did want the things that I said that

1:37:48they needed to give you guys the

1:37:49communication and that they needed to

1:37:51work on the aster items.

1:37:52>> I was about to add that.

1:37:54>> So, we need to uh reconsider the vote,

1:37:58>> which you can do at this meeting. You

1:38:00just need to have a vote to reconsider

1:38:04>> motion and a second vote.

1:38:06>> Motion to reconsider the previous vote.

1:38:09>> Second.

1:38:10>> Who seconded the motion to reconsider?

1:38:12Christie.

1:38:13I believe I'm not an attorney, but I

1:38:15believe it has to be one of the people

1:38:16that made the motion to reconsider,

1:38:18right?

1:38:19>> Yes.

1:38:22>> Keith made the motion.

1:38:23>> You did.

1:38:24>> And he second. He second. Mark second.

1:38:27Yeah.

1:38:28>> Okay. Motion to reconsider. All in favor

1:38:30say I.

1:38:31>> I.

1:38:32>> All oppose.

1:38:33>> All right. Reconsider.

1:38:35>> Okay. So,

1:38:37what I was saying is that I was voting

1:38:39to approve Lord. Reszoning 26 CZ08,

1:38:45right? Or did I already close it? Sorry.

1:38:47Sorry. Sorry.

1:38:48>> The wrong one.

1:38:50>> Can you confirm what the

1:38:52>> Yeah, Jim, I just

1:38:55on the report it's 26 CZ2.

1:38:58>> Correct.

1:38:58>> On the agenda, it's 26 CZ1.

1:39:01>> Correct.

1:39:02>> It is O2. Thank you for Okay. From a

1:39:06legality standpoint.

1:39:07>> Okay. So, it's to approve 26 CZ02,

1:39:12right, with um

1:39:14>> option one,

1:39:15>> option one. And that the applicant will

1:39:20share with staff all communication that

1:39:23they've had with the property owners

1:39:24saying they would not like to go forward

1:39:26with a sale and that they would work

1:39:28together.

1:39:28>> Please. [laughter]

1:39:30>> Oh, sorry.

1:39:31>> I could I put all of this in the

1:39:32document.

1:39:33>> I'm sorry.

1:39:35>> Tell me when you're ready.

1:39:36>> Okay. And then the second that they

1:39:38would work with staff to approve

1:39:41language on the asterric items in the

1:39:44presentation.

1:39:47That was what I said.

1:39:50>> Okay.

1:39:51>> Was that the

1:39:52>> That was it.

1:39:56>> But did she make the motion?

1:39:57>> I did.

1:39:59>> Well, I made the motion. She second.

1:40:02>> No. No. I just made it.

1:40:04>> Oh, yeah. after we after we pass. That's

1:40:06right.

1:40:06>> So now we need a new second.

1:40:08>> I second that.

1:40:09>> Mary.

1:40:11>> Oh, we have a motion in a second. All in

1:40:13favor say I.

1:40:14>> All oppose.

1:40:16>> Motion carried.

1:40:16>> Thank you.

1:40:17>> Now I'd like to take a

1:40:20minute. [laughter]

1:40:21>> We can now leave.

1:40:23>> Before we move, I'd like a motion to

1:40:24take a fivem minute break.

1:40:26>> I'll second.

1:40:27>> Have a motion in a second. All approved

1:40:28say I. All oppose. See you in five.

1:48:15Yeah,

1:48:16>> he had a key.

1:48:18>> Okay, we like to bring it back after the

1:48:21fivem minute recess.

1:48:25Well, tonight we will bring it to item

1:48:26number two, public hearing and possible

1:48:28motion regarding resing case 26 CZ08409

1:48:34Godwin Road.

1:48:36>> So many numbers. Uh good evening folks.

1:48:38Uh my name is Thomas Rail and I'll be

1:48:39presenting 26 CZ08409

1:48:43Goodwin Road.

1:48:45The property is located on Goodwin Road

1:48:47uh north of US Highway 64 in the western

1:48:49part of Apex.

1:48:51The property is on the northeastern

1:48:54corner of Goodwin Road between the

1:48:55American Tobacco Trail to the north and

1:48:58single family homes and the Apex Light

1:49:00Industrial Project to the south. You'll

1:49:02also see the Kerry Apex water treatment

1:49:04facility to the northeast. Uh the parcel

1:49:06is 8.93 acres. Um has mature trees,

1:49:11riparian buffers, and a large clearing.

1:49:16The property is currently zoned in Wake

1:49:18County as residential 80 watershed

1:49:20district. Um that's R80W

1:49:24with the properties to the north and the

1:49:26west sharing that same zoning district

1:49:27in the county. Uh the nearby

1:49:32Apex Light Industrial Project um is

1:49:34zoned Techflex Conditional to the south

1:49:37and east.

1:49:40The applicant is seeking a rural

1:49:42residential conditional zoning district.

1:49:44The applicant has conducted two

1:49:46neighborhood meetings on June 29th and

1:49:48September 14th. You'll see those full

1:49:50meeting reports in your staff report

1:49:52packet. Wake County schools indicated

1:49:54that schools at the high school grade

1:49:56level are anticipated to have

1:49:57insufficient capacity for future

1:49:59students. Transportation outside the

1:50:01assignment area is anticipated. Uh

1:50:03school expansion or construction within

1:50:05the next five years may address concerns

1:50:07at the high school grade level.

1:50:09This proposal is exempt from EAB review,

1:50:12but the applicant did offer a number of

1:50:13standard EAB recommended conditions and

1:50:16there were no recommendations from

1:50:18housing

1:50:21in the 2045 land use map. This is

1:50:23designated as rural density residential.

1:50:26However, the RRCZ zoning is inconsistent

1:50:30with that land use classification.

1:50:33So if the resoning is approved as

1:50:35presented, the land use classification

1:50:38of the parcel would change to rural

1:50:40transition residential.

1:50:47In seeking rural residential conditional

1:50:49zoning district, the applicant has

1:50:51limited their permitted uses to six

1:50:53single family, accessory apartment,

1:50:55utility minor, park passive, park

1:50:57active, and greenway. They have offered

1:50:5911 architectural conditions and 19

1:51:01additional conditions.

1:51:05I've highlighted a few of the zoning

1:51:07conditions here. Uh, one is that they're

1:51:08limiting the number of lots to no more

1:51:10than eight single family lots and they

1:51:13also wanted to be cognizant of lighting

1:51:16in the area and wrote a condition that

1:51:17would minimize those effects to the

1:51:19neighbors. Uh, Goodwin Road itself would

1:51:21not have street lighting, but if there

1:51:23are any um crosswalks within or at the

1:51:26uh intersection of the new street and

1:51:29Goodwin Road, it may have lights.

1:51:34Additionally, they made conditions

1:51:35related to construction vehicles noise

1:51:38and hour of operation of construction.

1:51:40And then they've offered some uh

1:51:42conditions related to buffers, fences,

1:51:44and landscape BMS uh to the neighboring

1:51:47parcels.

1:51:50Uh staff has heard from a number of

1:51:52neighbors. I've exchanged uh a number of

1:51:54emails with Jim Green. He's going to

1:51:56speak today. Um and I've also shared

1:51:59some emails with David and Jackie Ball.

1:52:01they are direct neighbors to the parcel.

1:52:05So on this slide I wanted to give some

1:52:07details on the existing and proposed

1:52:08pedestrian network because it relates to

1:52:11a condition proposed by staff. Um

1:52:14clearly the American Tobacco Trail is

1:52:16the main pedestrian corridor in the

1:52:18vicinity. You see that in green.

1:52:20Additionally, the Apex Light Industrial

1:52:22site is conducting a 10-foot uh side

1:52:26path on their property frontage, which

1:52:28is on the eastern side of Goodwin Road

1:52:31there. Um you see that in light blue.

1:52:33I've kind of pointed that out here in

1:52:35the far bottom corner. The applicant for

1:52:391409 Goodwin Road would be required and

1:52:41has committed to building the 10-ft side

1:52:4410- foot wide side path along their

1:52:46property frontage that's shown in

1:52:47yellow. Um staff has requested a

1:52:51condition for the applicant to extend

1:52:52the side path that they're building to

1:52:55the west to connect with the American

1:52:56Tobacco Trail. And that uh off-site side

1:52:59path is shown in orange. So you'll see

1:53:02there would be a gap um at 1421 and 1425

1:53:05Goodwin Road, although the

1:53:07transportation plan calls for a

1:53:08contiguous um side path. um there's not

1:53:13existing rightway to construct that side

1:53:15path and um we've heard from the

1:53:18neighbors that they did not want that.

1:53:20So we thought the better connection

1:53:21would be to the American Tobacco Trail.

1:53:25So the staff recommended condition uh is

1:53:27as follows. Developer shall extend the

1:53:2910- foot wide side path from the

1:53:31property frontage west to connect to the

1:53:33American Tobacco Trail. If the developer

1:53:35is unable to acquire the encroachment

1:53:37agreement from NC DOT, developer shall

1:53:40provide an engineer's estimate for the

1:53:42total cost of the side path to be

1:53:43reviewed and approved by the town and

1:53:46pay a fee in lie in that amount and the

1:53:49applicant is aware of staff's

1:53:51recommendation. Uh planning staff

1:53:53recommends approval of resoning case 26

1:53:56CC08 with the aforementioned staff

1:53:58recommended condition.

1:54:01The proposed resoning is reasonable in

1:54:03the public interest because it provides

1:54:04a transition between non-residential

1:54:06uses to the south and east and the large

1:54:09lot residential properties primarily

1:54:10west of the American Tobacco Trail

1:54:12Corridor and provides a needed

1:54:14pedestrian connection to the American

1:54:16Tobacco Trail. Furthermore, the resoning

1:54:18provides stricter architectural

1:54:20conditions than the UDO requires,

1:54:22provides storm water measures beyond uh

1:54:24or above UDO standards, and incorporates

1:54:26typical suggested conditions from the

1:54:28Apex EAB. So I am here to answer any

1:54:32questions. Uh the applicant is here as

1:54:34well. Um there is an exhibit that they

1:54:36could show. They are able to answer any

1:54:38questions and speak as well. So do you

1:54:40have any questions for me at the moment?

1:54:41>> I did when I was reading through it

1:54:44there was some neighborhood discussions

1:54:45about the trail head and then this was

1:54:48the path. Are these the same or is that

1:54:50what you guys withdrew? Is is that what

1:54:52you were saying? Yeah, there was there

1:54:54was earlier discussion uh to have the

1:54:56side path constructed by the applicant

1:54:58in both directions to to fully close the

1:55:01gap. Um we thought it was fair to

1:55:05exclude that from the proposal. It'd be

1:55:07a lot of off-site improvement and um

1:55:09we'd be better neighbors not to have uh

1:55:12the side path going through the ball

1:55:14properties um if they're not in favor.

1:55:17>> Okay. Thank you.

1:55:21Yeah, I got a question real quick and if

1:55:23I overlooked it, I apologize. So, who

1:55:26owns the property between 1409 Goodwin

1:55:28Road and the American Tobacco Trail?

1:55:30>> So, that is a Army Corps property I

1:55:32believe or it's a railroad. Yeah, NC DOT

1:55:35who owns the

1:55:35>> Oh, so that's where trying to get the

1:55:37permission from DOT comes into play.

1:55:39>> Yeah, they would need an encroachment

1:55:40agreement with NC DOT. Um,

1:55:43you know, there are trail heads along AT

1:55:45that have parking. We're not saying that

1:55:48this one would, but just a connection.

1:55:50>> Okay. Thank you.

1:55:53>> If NC do is the encroachment agreement,

1:55:56is it Lake County that would be the

1:55:58actual trail head that you need approval

1:56:00from to go onto the AT or is that NC do

1:56:03as well?

1:56:05>> DOT controls AT.

1:56:08>> Yeah.

1:56:10>> So if they if they gave us the

1:56:12encroachment, they would they would

1:56:13allow it to connect like others um

1:56:15connections have been done in Apex.

1:56:20Do you know if there are any other plans

1:56:22for connecting within that um property

1:56:25to the American Tobacco Trail despite

1:56:27the connectivity along Goodwin Road?

1:56:29>> Oh, like from within the site if they

1:56:31could access it. Um that would be for

1:56:33the applicant to to speak to. It could

1:56:35have to do with grade. Um I I assume

1:56:38they would have to get DOT um

1:56:40encouragement for that as well

1:56:43because the transportation plan calls

1:56:45for a side path here. Uh I think for

1:56:47them and us it's the more logical

1:56:50location.

1:56:54>> NC DOT also limits like the number of

1:56:57access points. So this would be the most

1:57:00logical point of access

1:57:02>> from the road.

1:57:06>> I have a side question. Um is there a

1:57:08buffer to be maintained from the

1:57:11American Tobacco Trail? There is a

1:57:13standard buffer in the UDO um along the

1:57:16American backer trail. I believe it's

1:57:17100 feet or 50. Yeah, 50 foot type A. So

1:57:21they would be required to maintain that

1:57:24um where they have frontage or where

1:57:26they abut the American Tobacco Trail.

1:57:29You can't see that here on the site, but

1:57:30on other let's see

1:57:35they do have obviously a lot of right

1:57:39here.

1:57:43The site's roughly just under nine

1:57:45acres.

1:57:45>> Just under nine acres. Um so for

1:57:49the rural residential zoning um calls

1:57:53for single family a 1acre lot average

1:57:56lot size 50 ft a lot width. Um the

1:58:00maximum gross density would be one

1:58:01dwelling unit per acre. So they they

1:58:04would be under that um with eight lots

1:58:07for 8.93.

1:58:09Would

1:58:16you like to hear from the applicant

1:58:19or any more from me?

1:58:36>> Good evening everybody. My name is

1:58:38Patrick Kieran, Jones and Kosson

1:58:40Engineering, 221 North Salem Street. I'm

1:58:43here representing the applicant Ardent

1:58:45Building for this reasonzoning. Um,

1:58:48thank you to Thomas for all of his help

1:58:50throughout the uh process. I'm going to

1:58:52jump around a little bit. I was going to

1:58:53start with um one half of the

1:58:56presentation, but sort of in response to

1:58:58some of the questions um regarding

1:59:01access to the AT um there is that 50

1:59:04foot buffer. There's also a significant

1:59:05grading grade change between the two.

1:59:08Um, so it it certainly, you know, there

1:59:11there would not be any proposed access

1:59:13to the AT any further north than Goodwin

1:59:15Road. Um, so sorry, there's there's

1:59:18multiple kind of issues behind that. Um,

1:59:21Chrissy, you also mentioned uh the trail

1:59:23head. That was an early recommendation

1:59:26by town staff and it kind of plays into

1:59:29I'm going to circle back to why we

1:59:32aren't going with the condition

1:59:33recommended by staff currently. Um, I

1:59:36think there's a couple kind of big

1:59:38picture things that I like about this

1:59:40project. One being as Thomas noted, it

1:59:43is in the R80W waterhed designating or

1:59:46you know signifying a critical wershed.

1:59:48So, while we were not required to go to

1:59:50the EAB, we did want to still follow a

1:59:52lot of their recommendations, including

1:59:54treating the storm water to the 25-year

1:59:56storm, um, which exceeds the 10-year

1:59:59minimum that the state ordinance and the

2:00:00UVO require. Um, so we're, you know,

2:00:03we're taking our location seriously

2:00:05within the Jordan Lake wershed. Um, the

2:00:08other thing that we're sensitive to is

2:00:09the Goodwin Road community, which is,

2:00:12um, a number of large parcels currently

2:00:15in Wake County zoning. Um this is a um a

2:00:19rural community with a you know rural

2:00:21feel. I know right now Apex Le

2:00:24Industrial as you come off of 64. Um it

2:00:27feels like the town is sort of merged on

2:00:29you know kind of converged onto Goodwin

2:00:31Road but once you get kind of behind the

2:00:33American Tobacco Trail especially, you

2:00:35know, really the rural feel of it really

2:00:37opens up. Um, so we really wanted to be

2:00:41sensitive to the neighbors and we have

2:00:43been very responsive through the

2:00:44neighborhood meetings and the requests.

2:00:46We have um approximately six zoning

2:00:49conditions that have been added directly

2:00:52as a result to conversations with

2:00:53neighbors. We've had several

2:00:54conversations with several neighbors um

2:00:57about this. Um so the trail head was

2:01:00originally requested, a connection to

2:01:02the AT and then also a connection to

2:01:04Apex Le Industrial were all originally

2:01:06requested. Um the neighbors were not in

2:01:09favor of any of those connections being

2:01:11made.

2:01:13Very much opposed to the connection to

2:01:14Apex Lind Industrial, very much opposed

2:01:16to the trail head because that also, you

2:01:19know, brings in vehicles onto Goodwin

2:01:21Road and people parking and accessing

2:01:23that way, increasing traffic. Um the

2:01:25connection from our site to the American

2:01:27Tobacco Trail is admittedly less

2:01:31consequential, I think, to the rest of

2:01:32Goodwin Road. It's still there.

2:01:35um

2:01:37request that we do not make that

2:01:39connection that we do not encourage more

2:01:42um connection to the AT and keep the

2:01:44rural field integrity in place. So at

2:01:47this point we are not going with that

2:01:49recommendation strictly out of respect

2:01:51to the community and their wishes. Um,

2:01:54understanding that, you know, if um, you

2:01:58know, you guys and the town council feel

2:02:01strongly otherwise, you know, we are

2:02:03certainly open to discussion and adding

2:02:05that condition later on, but as of

2:02:06tonight, our intent is to not make the

2:02:10connection to the American Trail. Um,

2:02:14I've got this exhibit pulled up. This is

2:02:15more of a it's similar to the um,

2:02:19zoning map that Thomas had pulled up,

2:02:21but I wanted to focus on the land use

2:02:23Um, I do think that a lot of this case

2:02:26boils down to land use appropriateness.

2:02:29Um, so as Thomas noted, it's currently

2:02:31R8W. So minimum 80,000 foot lots roughly

2:02:35equates to 2acre lots. Um, the current

2:02:39land use map, 2045 land use map

2:02:41designates this as um,

2:02:44rural, what is it? Rural density

2:02:48residential, which allows for one unit

2:02:50per five acres. So even based on the

2:02:52current

2:02:53um zoning, they're actually entitled to

2:02:56more lots currently within the Wake

2:02:58County zoning than if they were to annex

2:03:01into Apex and adhere to the 2045 land

2:03:04use map. Um so currently based on county

2:03:06zoning, they would be allowed up to four

2:03:09lots on this property. We are requesting

2:03:12a maximum of eight. Um,

2:03:16so this map, you know, while we we we

2:03:18share, you know, part of our border with

2:03:20the Apex Lite Industrial, which is a

2:03:23rather intense use, industrial use, we

2:03:25also have a Duke Energy substation

2:03:28directly to our north that completes the

2:03:29rest of our eastern uh boundary. And

2:03:32then just to the northeast of that is

2:03:33Town of Cary Water Treatment Facility.

2:03:35So you can see on this map that the um

2:03:38infrastructure facilities andor

2:03:39industrial facilities are almost you

2:03:43know at this point really. Um and then

2:03:46the other thing I wanted to kind of

2:03:49recognize on this map is that there are

2:03:51several of the even existing current

2:03:54residential properties that are would

2:03:56not meet the one unit per 5 acre um

2:03:59threshold for Apex. And then um you know

2:04:02there's a few most notably directly

2:04:04across the street on the Goodwin

2:04:05property and then one of these two ball

2:04:08properties which are actually less than

2:04:09the 80,000 square foot um R80W minimum.

2:04:13So they don't even it's you know it's

2:04:15grandfathered in. I'm not accusing them

2:04:17of anything but they do not currently

2:04:19meet that minimum 80,000 foot

2:04:21requirement either. Um our site, we do

2:04:24not have it as a zoning condition, but

2:04:25we do not uh propose any lots greater

2:04:28than half an acre. Um so on average, it

2:04:31equates to about 0.9 units per acre,

2:04:33eight homes on 8.9 acres. Um but from an

2:04:36actual lot size, you know, we we plan on

2:04:40a single culde-sac street kind of um

2:04:42running down the the spine of the site

2:04:45and then eight homes around that. We

2:04:47have a 50-foot landscape buffer along

2:04:50the American Tobacco Trail as well as a

2:04:52stream to our east which carries a 50-

2:04:53foot intermittent stream buffer. Um, and

2:04:57then out on Goodwin Road, one of the

2:04:59requests from the neighbors was

2:05:01additional landscape screening. Goodwin

2:05:03Road does not have any streetscape

2:05:04requirements. We are offering a 15oot

2:05:07streetscape easement. So, not a

2:05:09streetscape buffer that would be owned

2:05:11and maintained by an HOA, but rather a

2:05:13streetscape easement, which would, you

2:05:15know, if there are any residential lots,

2:05:16that easement would be on that private

2:05:18lot, but it would be 15 ft worth of

2:05:20landscaping and a burm alongside it to

2:05:23um kind of grant that uh streetscape

2:05:26buffer buffer that they were hoping to

2:05:28achieve. Um,

2:05:31I think that's that's really the long

2:05:33and short of it. you know, we

2:05:35we definitely want to respect

2:05:39um you know, everybody on Good Goodwin

2:05:41Road as much as we can. Um this site as

2:05:44we understand it was used as a

2:05:48better, you know, lack of better words,

2:05:49a dumping ground by NC DOT while they

2:05:51were constructing 64. So, it's a lot of

2:05:54backfill of um probably unsuitable

2:05:57materials for construction. So there

2:06:00there may be you know a decent bit of

2:06:02excavation of material or um you know

2:06:04replacement. So this currently is not a

2:06:08particularly usable site as it currently

2:06:11stands. It's a lot of buffers, a lot of

2:06:13um you know not great soil. So from a

2:06:15county, you know, if we were to move

2:06:17forward with the four county homes, the

2:06:19septic suitability is not great for this

2:06:21type of project and it would require

2:06:23some septic engineering um surface field

2:06:26drip fields which take up a lot of space

2:06:28and are not the most aesthetically

2:06:29pleasing. Um so all things pointing us

2:06:32back towards Apex jurisdiction, you

2:06:35know, is the right way to go bringing

2:06:36town water and sewer to the site. Um and

2:06:41you know, bringing the necessary

2:06:42infrastructure as well. Um, so that's

2:06:44that's sort of my spiel here for you

2:06:46tonight. Happy to answer any questions

2:06:47you have.

2:06:51>> How would you get water and sewer to

2:06:54that location?

2:06:56>> So, great question. Um, the water is

2:06:59currently stubbed to the end of the lead

2:07:01industrial project about right here,

2:07:03>> right?

2:07:04>> So, we will need to work with um NC DOT

2:07:07about running a water line inside

2:07:09Goodwin right away um in order to access

2:07:12our site. That is our plan A for water.

2:07:16Sewer is very interesting. Um,

2:07:19Apex Light Industrial has a pump station

2:07:22about in this corner right here. So, we

2:07:24have discussed with the engineers and

2:07:27the developers for this project about um

2:07:30possibility to access that pump station.

2:07:32So, that in tandem with working with the

2:07:36Duke substation,

2:07:38our goal is they're called STEP systems.

2:07:41They're septic systems that um

2:07:44effectively hold the effluent in a

2:07:47septic tank, but they then have a small

2:07:50pump, a separate chamber that, you know,

2:07:53filters out the gray water and a small

2:07:55pump that then pumps basically a small

2:07:57force man. I think each home would

2:07:59require about an inch and a half force

2:08:00main that pumps out that gray water, you

2:08:04know, up or down or all around

2:08:05pressurized pipe. Doesn't need to fall,

2:08:06you know, follow gravity. So it would be

2:08:09able to then go under this creek and

2:08:11back basically follow the lay of the

2:08:13land along the Duke side of the property

2:08:16line. Duke currently has a um town of

2:08:20Kerry water line that goes north south

2:08:22and then turns about where my cursor is

2:08:24and goes east west. So our alignment for

2:08:27our sewer would effectively shoot the

2:08:30gap between the apex industrial site and

2:08:33that town of Kerry water line easement.

2:08:35We've had great conversations with Duke,

2:08:37email correspondence where they have

2:08:39given us their support thus far.

2:08:41Obviously, there's further encroachments

2:08:43and, you know, analysis to be done later

2:08:44on when the project moves forward. But

2:08:47right now, we have reason to believe

2:08:48that Duke will be willing to grant that

2:08:50easement. Uh, and then from there, like

2:08:52I said, we've worked with the owners of

2:08:53Light Industrial to provide a sewer

2:08:56stub, retroactively provide a sewer stub

2:08:59that we can then access the pump

2:09:01station. So

2:09:03the sewer was really the the biggest

2:09:05crux of this project moving forward.

2:09:06Like I said

2:09:07>> with the county, it was the septic

2:09:09issues with with the town, you know,

2:09:11getting on town sewer. It was

2:09:13>> we have a pump station here. There is

2:09:15sewer internal to apex industrial. Could

2:09:18we come around Goodwin road and get in

2:09:20this way? That got into a whole bevy of

2:09:21issues with their current site plan and

2:09:23resource conservation area, etc. So we

2:09:25we analyze a number of different options

2:09:27and this appears to be our you know best

2:09:30best route forward plan a so to speak.

2:09:32So obviously those are not necessarily

2:09:34components of the resoning. This is more

2:09:36of a land use and um density question at

2:09:40hand. Um but those are sort of our

2:09:43>> okay

2:09:43>> plans of attack right now.

2:09:45>> No just want to make sure that there's

2:09:47no plans to interfere with the neighbors

2:09:49looking for an ement with the neighbor.

2:09:52That's absolutely our intent is to avoid

2:09:54off-site easements um where possible. I

2:09:57think the the two properties here, the

2:10:00ball properties, they have a a small

2:10:01orchard in their front. Um you know,

2:10:03that goes directly to our opposition to

2:10:06adding the 10-ft pedestrian path in

2:10:09front of their homes as well because

2:10:10that edge of pavement, roadside ditch,

2:10:13you know, we would be encroaching onto

2:10:15their property and potentially impacting

2:10:17their, you know, their quality of life

2:10:19with those facilities. So, we we've had

2:10:22correspondence with NC DOT about would

2:10:24they support the water line within the

2:10:26rightway. Again, early conversations

2:10:28have alluded to yes. We're still working

2:10:30with the town of Apex on on those

2:10:31conversations as well.

2:10:39>> Any other questions for the

2:10:43Thank you, Patrick. Thank you.

2:10:48We're now [clears throat] open public

2:10:49comment.

2:10:51We have anyone

2:10:53signed to speak? Thank you, sir.

2:10:58First, we have James Green.

2:11:06>> Please state your name and address, Mr.

2:11:08Green.

2:11:08>> Uh, James Green. I live on Broken Hill

2:11:11Trail, which is about 600 feet from the

2:11:13property we're talking about. Uh, I want

2:11:16to let you know I'm I'm expressing

2:11:17review my my viewpoints and not

2:11:20necessarily those of the neighbors. But

2:11:22I I want to say I'm not against putting

2:11:25more or putting houses on this property.

2:11:28I'm just against the density they're

2:11:31requesting. It's doubling up the density

2:11:34level compared to what we have in the

2:11:35neighborhood. I spent a lot of time

2:11:38trying to understand the petition, some

2:11:40of the legal jargon, and some of the

2:11:42protocols. It's kind of overwhelming to

2:11:45tell you the truth. But I noticed um in

2:11:48the in the petition particularly there

2:11:51was a lot of terms that were vague in

2:11:54terms they weren't quantifiable items.

2:11:57Terms like slight, large, small, less

2:12:00than, lower, very low, etc. And these

2:12:04are characterizing impacts on our

2:12:06community. And it seems to me a lot of

2:12:08those terms are just kind of subjective.

2:12:10So I'm kind of asking the you to think

2:12:13about considering in the future putting

2:12:16some descriptive terms together that

2:12:18have some meaning so I know what you're

2:12:20talking about. In other words,

2:12:21percentage change or whatever. Okay. The

2:12:25demographics of this community. This

2:12:27community has been in existence for at

2:12:28least a hundred years, maybe a little

2:12:30bit more. The average age of the people

2:12:33that live there is is 67. Um the average

2:12:37length of property ownership is 30 plus

2:12:40years. Uh 30% of the people that live I

2:12:44mean yeah 30% of the people that own

2:12:47property have owned it for 40 years. So

2:12:50it's a it's a neighborhood that's been

2:12:51there a long time. We have a lot of

2:12:53tradition and a lot of privacy. Most of

2:12:56our homes are not even visible to

2:12:58Goodwin Road. U they're covered with

2:13:01trees. Um there's no DOT

2:13:06um

2:13:08provision for turning traffic on that

2:13:11road. All the traffic that turns on that

2:13:14road, including cement trucks, trailer

2:13:17trucks, delivery trucks, turn in our

2:13:19property, somebody's property. If you

2:13:22ever tried to mow grass over a six-foot

2:13:24rut, you kind of get, you know,

2:13:26aggravated about that. Then I I want to

2:13:30kind of What have I got? Am I going I

2:13:32got 47 seconds left. You're going to

2:13:34beat me. Okay. I'm used to electric

2:13:37charge.

2:13:38All right. I want to just make a point

2:13:40here about I read in the update in the

2:13:44February 20 2019 update of the 45 plan

2:13:49that the Castlewood area changed the or

2:13:51had the change in density from low

2:13:53density to rule density residential. I

2:13:57don't know the background on that. Y'all

2:13:59probably do. But the point is that that

2:14:02neighborhood is closer to downtown than

2:14:05we are. Of course, and so I would say

2:14:08there's at least 75% of our neighborhood

2:14:10that would like to keep the density that

2:14:12we have.

2:14:14Now, again, I'm not speaking for

2:14:16everybody, but uh just offhand, most

2:14:18people, yeah, do not want an increased

2:14:22density

2:14:24of of the neighborhood. We're not

2:14:26opposed to more housing, just not the

2:14:29density.

2:14:31>> Okay.

2:14:31>> Okay.

2:14:32>> Thank you, Mr. Green.

2:14:33>> Thank you very much.

2:14:36>> Next, we have Carrie Smith.

2:14:41>> I'm sorry.

2:14:43>> Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Then

2:14:45we will close public comment and bring

2:14:48it to the board for discussion and

2:14:49possible motion.

2:14:52Question. Go right ahead. Um the county

2:14:56designation of RAW,

2:14:58what's that? What is that density? Is it

2:15:0145 units per acre?

2:15:03>> So the max density is half a dwelling

2:15:05unit per acre. So those are average uh

2:15:06twoacre lots. So that's when Patrick was

2:15:08saying it would be like a four lot

2:15:12subdivision at the county level um

2:15:14versus eight in their proposal.

2:15:53acre.

2:15:55>> Thomas, can you explain to me how the

2:15:56fee and loop for the trail would work?

2:15:59Is that a dollar for dollar if they got

2:16:01engineering cost estimate?

2:16:03Feels like a pop quiz. It's not.

2:16:06>> Um

2:16:07yes, that that would be um kind of just

2:16:10just as we would for parks and wreck,

2:16:12you know, fees for transportation fees

2:16:15and low it'd be um they'd owe us what it

2:16:18would cost.

2:16:19>> Okay. And is the thought there that

2:16:22though the applicant can't get it done,

2:16:24maybe just

2:16:25>> that perhaps in the future the town

2:16:29Yeah, that would be the idea.

2:16:39>> Yeah,

2:16:40D would have to

2:16:47be concerned with

2:16:50the access to the tobacco trail, the

2:16:53applicant trying to keep it

2:16:57with less people and less traffic. Yes,

2:17:01they're putting eight instead of what

2:17:03would be originally county level at

2:17:06four, but eight lots, but the fact that

2:17:09they're not

2:17:11making that connection to the tobacco

2:17:13trail, I kind of like that. I mean, I

2:17:16would prefer there to be less traffic

2:17:18going there if we're going to be

2:17:20changing a development or at least a

2:17:22road.

2:17:24The way it is, if the goal is to not

2:17:27having more people there, then not

2:17:29having a tobacco trail entrance would be

2:17:31beneficial. I mean, if you think about

2:17:33all the people in Olive Chapel, we just

2:17:35park on the side of the road by that

2:17:37water treatment and I'll jump in there

2:17:39and that's not officially a parking lot.

2:17:43It's not, but everybody's there and

2:17:44parked all over the street. And I would

2:17:46hate for that to happen here.

2:17:50So, I get what they're doing with trying

2:17:53not to make that connection. I know that

2:17:56the Apex is growing and we use that

2:18:00tobacco trail feel like there are

2:18:02already entrances. So I kind of

2:18:04appreciate the fact that

2:18:06is not

2:18:09wanting to do that part of it just to

2:18:11try to keep it small and combined and

2:18:14you know as Mr. Green was saying if

2:18:16they're already having turnarounds and

2:18:18they're from trucks who are coming off

2:18:20you know and and aren't um are going on

2:18:24the wrong road or whatever and have to

2:18:26turn around in our already damaging

2:18:28property, the less

2:18:30other people who we have going in there

2:18:33would probably be better if we're going

2:18:35to approve it. So, I I personally

2:18:37wouldn't be pushing for that at access

2:18:40just because we do have so many more

2:18:42laws. I mean, I know granted limit is

2:18:45not open right now, but it will be

2:18:46again. So, that's just an observation.

2:18:53>> Make an opposing comment on the side.

2:18:56Um, with the eight new homes, you know,

2:18:59people may want to walk out of the

2:19:00neighborhood, walk up, now they got to

2:19:01walk in the street. Um,

2:19:05I think it would be in many of the

2:19:06neighborhood even though they may not

2:19:08like it at this moment but as other

2:19:09people move in

2:19:13>> and to have a nice connection

2:19:17personal opinion

2:19:18>> for eight homes to add on to that just

2:19:20because the ball property is not being

2:19:23included now doesn't mean that in future

2:19:25years if they were to sell their homes

2:19:27to be redeveloped into

2:19:31how many homes three,

2:19:33>> right?

2:19:35>> That that would be a future connection

2:19:36to make that like

2:19:41>> I mean, I'm looking at it now on street

2:19:42view and it's

2:19:45decent

2:19:48decent amount of uh

2:19:51flat space between the road and the

2:19:54tree to park as is.

2:20:00trail head just makes it safer to do so.

2:20:05>> Is that a motion?

2:20:12>> What was it?

2:20:14>> All right. I'll make a motion to approve

2:20:16CB26.

2:20:19Wrong favor.

2:20:22>> 08

2:20:22>> 08. Is it 26?

2:20:25>> Yes.

2:20:25>> Yep. 26 26 TZ08

2:20:29as presented and with the staff's

2:20:32recommendation on the

2:20:36trail head extension.

2:20:39>> We have we have a second

2:20:46>> the staff recommendation was just for

2:20:47the

2:20:48>> Yeah.

2:20:50>> Yes. Friendly amendment accepted side

2:20:54path not

2:20:57>> wait. So what are you what just

2:21:00>> as presented it with uh re I'm

2:21:03recommending approval of 26 easy08

2:21:07with the staff recommended condition

2:21:10as presented by Thomas on the screen

2:21:12here

2:21:13>> which was to make the trailer h

2:21:15>> correct to well to install the 10 foot

2:21:18side path that connects

2:21:21Yeah, the staff recommended condition

2:21:23does not speak to a trail head, just the

2:21:25side path.

2:21:28>> We have a motion. We have a second.

2:21:30>> I have one question real quick.

2:21:31>> Yes. Um, Thomas, is there and for staff

2:21:35in general, the only concern I've got

2:21:38and and I'll vote for, but the concern

2:21:40I've got is there a way to prevent

2:21:43parking on the street

2:21:46on the stub for people that want to go

2:21:49to the

2:21:52tobacco trail.

2:21:54I guess

2:21:55>> Goen Road is an NC DOT road. So, we

2:21:58would not have the authority to uh enact

2:22:01a no parking,

2:22:02>> right? I'm talking about on the stub

2:22:04street, the culdeac that they're putting

2:22:05in

2:22:08>> barring the applicant putting signs up.

2:22:11Um,

2:22:12>> it would be a public street. And so, if

2:22:14it's annexed, then that would be a town

2:22:16street. The culde-sac that the eight

2:22:17lots would be developed off would be a a

2:22:20town street. But um that would be a

2:22:22question for legal whether the town

2:22:23could enact that on street parking is

2:22:25not allowed for the tobacco trail.

2:22:28>> Right. Right.

2:22:29>> So I think enforcement would be

2:22:30difficult even if there was possibility

2:22:32of adding something like that.

2:22:34>> Okay.

2:22:38>> Thank you. Thank you Jeff. So we have a

2:22:39motion in the second. So all in favor

2:22:42say I.

2:22:43>> All oppose. Motion carries.

2:22:51Okay, now we will move on to item number

2:22:53three, public hearing, possible motion

2:22:55regarding resing case 26Z10

2:23:00Vidia expansion 5.

2:23:03>> I would like to request recusal from

2:23:05this item.

2:23:06>> Oh. Oh, that's right.

2:23:07>> I'll make that motion to recuse Alissa.

2:23:10>> We have a motion to recuse Alissa. We

2:23:11have a second.

2:23:12>> Second.

2:23:13>> Second. All in favor say I. All

2:23:16>> oppose. Motion carry.

2:23:19>> How you doing today, Bruce?

2:23:20>> Good. How are you, chair? Good to see

2:23:21all you board members today. Like you

2:23:23mentioned, we'll be talking about the

2:23:24Bidia expansion number five. To get

2:23:26started, as many of you may be aware,

2:23:28this Bidia is located in the southwest

2:23:30portion near 540, Highway 55, and US

2:23:33Highway 1.

2:23:35What's coming in today before you is

2:23:37eight parcels that kind of make up

2:23:38surrounding areas or even internal to

2:23:40the overall Vidia site itself that are

2:23:42requesting to come in and be reszoned

2:23:44into the SD or the sustainable

2:23:46development conditional zoning that

2:23:47Vidia is under itself. Uh these parcels

2:23:50do vary in different zoning districts

2:23:51which we'll talk about in a minute but

2:23:53currently altogether these parcels equal

2:23:55about 23 acres in size. So, it's not a

2:23:57lot of property, but it is property here

2:23:59and there that's going to be brought in

2:24:00if you do recommend approval and council

2:24:02eventually approves this moving forward.

2:24:05So,

2:24:07this is permitted by the the UDO itself.

2:24:09Uh, sustainable development conditional

2:24:11zoning in section 2.316 does allow for

2:24:14parcel or parcels to be added to a

2:24:16sustainable development zoning district

2:24:18as long as it has a couple things that

2:24:20meets the criteria. One is that it's

2:24:22within 2,000 feet of the zoning

2:24:23district. this meets the criteria of

2:24:25that given how close in proximity it is

2:24:27and two that it has the written consent

2:24:29of the property or the the controlling

2:24:32party of the zoning district itself

2:24:34which they have provided as well and

2:24:36that town council ultimately does

2:24:38approve the the addition of these

2:24:39parcels as part of it. So there is a

2:24:41legal framework for this for adding

2:24:43additional parcels which you guys have

2:24:44probably had come before you in the past

2:24:46and so this is just adding to that as

2:24:48well. Should this be uh recommend should

2:24:52this recommendation go forward and be

2:24:54approved, these parcels will be under

2:24:56the previous approval. So the most

2:24:58recent amendment to the Vidia SD plan

2:25:01under 25 CZ18 would apply to these

2:25:03properties as well as would the

2:25:05environmental enhancement plan and the

2:25:06Verdia pattern book as well.

2:25:10Just a quick look at the zoning map. You

2:25:12can see that there's a variety of zoning

2:25:14present. So we have a rural residential,

2:25:16we have rural archicultural, and then we

2:25:18also have light industrial all made up

2:25:20of these different parcels around the

2:25:22area. And these would be turned, if this

2:25:23was approved, would turn into that

2:25:25purple SD as well. So it' be more

2:25:26consistent with the area.

2:25:29And that's just an example of what it

2:25:30would look like should this be approved

2:25:31and the zoning map was amended.

2:25:34So the future land use map, this whole

2:25:36area is shown as a regional mixeduse

2:25:38activity, a regional mixeduse center. So

2:25:40this is consistent. there would not be a

2:25:42need for a 2045 land use map amendment

2:25:45as part of this process. So that's

2:25:46that's good to note as well.

2:25:49And then lastly, this um this did go

2:25:52before your EAB this year. Um DAB voted

2:25:55to they are now charged to vote on the

2:25:58environmental impact. As you guys are

2:26:00aware, uh they did vote to recommend

2:26:02this um for approval, provide

2:26:04recommendation for approval for this.

2:26:05There was one dissenting vote that was

2:26:07included in your packet that you may

2:26:08have seen as well that you may reference

2:26:10if there's questions about that. This

2:26:12did provide both neighborhood meetings

2:26:14as required in July and in September

2:26:17itself. Uh staff does recommend approval

2:26:19of this and we find that is consistent,

2:26:21reasonable um as it kind of brings in

2:26:24some loose parcels into the the overall

2:26:26development and continued growth of this

2:26:27area and additionally will potentially

2:26:29increase some revenue and tax um tax

2:26:32opportunities for the town itself. Um,

2:26:34one thing to note is that typically when

2:26:37parcels are added to a a zoning

2:26:38district, the densities may change

2:26:40because they're adding more properties.

2:26:42So, it kind of brings down their

2:26:43densities, might give them the

2:26:44opportunity to increase that or kind of

2:26:46work with that. The applicant is not

2:26:48proposing any increases in their density

2:26:50because of this. They would just like to

2:26:51have this property. It's part of their

2:26:53zone district moving forward. So, that's

2:26:55my uh quick presentation on this. The

2:26:57applicant also has a quick presentation

2:26:59for you. Any questions? I'm happy to

2:27:01answer them. Yes, ma'am. So, I've had

2:27:03some emails about blasting, dust, noise,

2:27:06construction, traffic, etc. Can you

2:27:08please explain for residents what the

2:27:10town regulations already are that govern

2:27:12those activities and who they're

2:27:13supposed to contact when they think that

2:27:15something's going on in violation?

2:27:17>> Sure. So, um any kind of work on the

2:27:19site itself is is subject to the UDO and

2:27:21the hours that are permitted between

2:27:22those two things. If any work is done in

2:27:24between those hours, they can reach out

2:27:25to the town itself. Uh who's the direct

2:27:27contact for that, Amanda?

2:27:30>> I'll have to I'll have to look that up.

2:27:31the blasting is monitored by the fire

2:27:33department and others. So there's

2:27:35there's a lot of departments in the list

2:27:37of concerns that you listed. Um and we

2:27:41do have a uh it's there's a list of

2:27:45contacts that um I can

2:27:48pull up. It's not it's it's embedded in

2:27:51another application. So it's uh not

2:27:54readily available to the public of who

2:27:55to call with different concerns.

2:27:58Um it's in our application packets. I

2:28:01saw that at the end. Sometimes you have

2:28:02them also I think in your public meeting

2:28:05notes. I just asked the question because

2:28:07as you saw the gentleman before

2:28:08sometimes people aren't paying attention

2:28:10or they don't know until they're

2:28:11impacted and so just trying to get it

2:28:13out there what they can do if

2:28:14something's going on.

2:28:15>> Understandable. Yeah. And like just now

2:28:17we we have to look up exactly who the

2:28:19contact person is. We know if there's

2:28:20some type of zoning condition you can

2:28:21call us and we'd help you. But the fire

2:28:23department is involved in some

2:28:24demolition and blasting as well. both

2:28:26for noise and hours of construction. If

2:28:28it violates the noise ordinance, that's

2:28:30they would need to call the

2:28:31non-emergency police number.

2:28:34>> You're welcome.

2:28:36>> Thanks so much.

2:28:37>> Absolutely.

2:28:39>> Any other questions? Bruce,

2:28:42the applicant like to speak.

2:28:52>> Good evening, chair, members of the

2:28:54board. Let the Tisha Shapiro Morning

2:28:55Star Law Group here on behalf of the

2:28:57applicant RXR realy. Uh as always, Bruce

2:29:00did a great job of uh providing the

2:29:02details of the case and so I'm here to

2:29:03answer any questions that you might

2:29:05have. The proposed reszoning of these

2:29:07properties uh to SDCZ represents another

2:29:10step in RXR's vision to incorporate

2:29:12additional properties located at US1 in

2:29:16between US1 and 55 just north of I540

2:29:19into the Vidia sustainable development

2:29:22plan. And if approved, these properties

2:29:24will become part of the overall Vidia SD

2:29:26plan and will be subject to the

2:29:28established standards and commitments,

2:29:30including the environmental enhancement

2:29:31plan, which reflects the continued

2:29:33collaboration between RXR and the town

2:29:36um to implement a very thoughtful

2:29:39comprehensive vision for the this very

2:29:42important area of the community. RXR

2:29:44remains committed to walk the walk and

2:29:46as a community member focused on the

2:29:48future of Apex and for these reasons and

2:29:51the reasons already mentioned by Bruce.

2:29:53The resoning is consistent with the

2:29:55comprehensive plan and in the public

2:29:56interest and I thank you for your time

2:29:58and respectfully request your

2:30:00recommendation of approval. And I do

2:30:01know that that list of contacts also

2:30:04goes out in the neighborhood meeting

2:30:05notice. So yeah,

2:30:09>> any questions for the applicant?

2:30:13Thank you.

2:30:16Well, now we will go to do we have

2:30:18anyone signed up to speak on public

2:30:20comment?

2:30:26>> Okay, hearing none, we will close public

2:30:27comment and bring it to the board for

2:30:29discussion and possible motion.

2:30:37I'll start off by saying I think this

2:30:39was pretty dry. Clear and dry. um clean.

2:30:45Glad to see that Bid is is expanding

2:30:47every day and I will be in support of

2:30:49this.

2:30:52I would I've got one question for Bruce.

2:30:57I just drew my attention to it. On the

2:30:59public notice, it's showing

2:31:02[clears throat]

2:31:03a piece of property on the eastern side

2:31:06of 55 up near Pristine Water Way.

2:31:10And that's on the very last page of the

2:31:13of the of our packet.

2:31:18But in the presentation, I didn't see

2:31:20that on the reasoning map.

2:31:23>> It might have been an error. There was

2:31:26uh some amendments made in between the

2:31:29time that the notices went out to

2:31:30correct some things. Let me double check

2:31:32the presentation.

2:31:36So, I think there might be an error on

2:31:38the one of the neighborhood meetings

2:31:40where it shows a parcel. Use my mouse

2:31:42because you can't see where my P uh is

2:31:44it a parcel. Is it up here?

2:31:47>> A little bit higher.

2:31:48>> Way up. Yeah. A lot higher up there.

2:31:50>> Yeah.

2:31:53>> On the same side of 55 as the fire

2:31:56station.

2:31:58>> That was an artifact. The only the only

2:32:00parcels being proposed are the ones

2:32:01within within the 55 and the US one.

2:32:04Okay. Okay. I just want to make sure

2:32:07wasn't missing something. Thank you.

2:32:09>> No problem. Thank you.

2:32:12>> I'll make a motion to approve.

2:32:14>> We have a motion to approve from Mr.

2:32:17Hastings, Vice Chair. We have a second.

2:32:19>> Second.

2:32:20>> Have a motion in a second. All in favor

2:32:22say I.

2:32:23>> All oppose. Motion carried.

2:32:30>> Motion.

2:32:32>> Motion. Yes, ma'am. Yes, ma'am.

2:32:34>> And we're going to need the motion to

2:32:35bring Alyssa back.

2:32:37>> Make a motion to bring Alyssa back in.

2:32:39>> Have a motion to bring Alyssa back in.

2:32:40We have a second.

2:32:42>> I'll second.

2:32:45>> I know [laughter]

2:32:47where Alissa jump.

2:32:50>> You guys are tired.

2:32:51>> Have a motion. [laughter] Second.

2:32:53>> All in favor say I.

2:32:54>> All oppose. Motion carry.

2:32:58Welcome back, Melissa.

2:33:00Now we will go to old business. Item

2:33:02number one, Amanda,

2:33:06[cough]

2:33:07>> excuse me.

2:33:10>> Okay, so um as you remember last month,

2:33:12you we reviewed um proposed amendments

2:33:14to uh the planning board and board of

2:33:17adjustment sections in order to change

2:33:19the method for how advisory board

2:33:21appointments um are made. Um there are

2:33:24no changes to the text that have been

2:33:27made since uh last month. and uh town

2:33:30clerk Alan Coleman is here at the last

2:33:32last month you had some questions about

2:33:34how had this been what was the process

2:33:36for this what kind of communication had

2:33:38been had with the council and the mayor

2:33:40and so he is here to um provide some

2:33:43more background

2:33:49>> evening yes good to see you all um so

2:33:53just a little bit of background so this

2:33:55was a request by council that come up

2:33:57during their August work session. Um,

2:34:00and they had asked for there to be a

2:34:02shot clock for the mayor to provide a

2:34:04recommendation. And they also asked for

2:34:06if the mayor does not provide a

2:34:08recommendation andor if they are not

2:34:10supportive of the recommendation, there

2:34:12to be an out. And so that is the

2:34:14language that you see here presented

2:34:15today.

2:34:17Does that make sense? Or is there any

2:34:19questions?

2:34:20>> Just can you just go over it again for

2:34:22us just since nothing's changed? But so

2:34:24>> Sure. Mayor makes a nomination, town

2:34:27council doesn't like it,

2:34:30mayor has a certain period of time to

2:34:33present a new nominee, right? Or and if

2:34:38he doesn't, then that's when the town

2:34:40council takes over and then they can

2:34:41present somebody.

2:34:44>> So, no. So in with this language, the

2:34:47mayor has to make a recommendation

2:34:49within 30 days, whether it's a an, you

2:34:52know, some a member resigns, so it's an

2:34:54unexpected vacancy. Or if we have a term

2:34:56that expires in December, right, a

2:34:58December or a June 30th or whenever the

2:35:00term expires, he would have 30 days from

2:35:02the time that the clerk's office sends

2:35:04in the packet that he makes a

2:35:06recommendation. So that's kind of what E

2:35:08is getting at is that shot clock, that

2:35:1030-day time frame. Um F is addressing

2:35:13that if they choose not to elect the

2:35:16mayor's recommended candidate. So their

2:35:18rules of procedure dictates that they

2:35:21will vote by ballot. And in order to

2:35:23vote by ballot, the mayor can make a

2:35:25recommendation or a nomination. Council

2:35:28can make a recommendation or a

2:35:29nomination.

2:35:31Does that make sense?

2:35:33>> And so then we distribute the ballots.

2:35:35And if any of you watched the last

2:35:37meeting, they could only vote on the

2:35:39mayor's recommended candidate for the

2:35:41ballots because that's the way the

2:35:43ordinance is currently written.

2:35:46And so in this amendment is to align

2:35:49with their rules of procedure. So their

2:35:52rules of procedure outlines that the

2:35:54mayor and or any member of council may

2:35:56submit a name or a nomination.

2:35:59And they approved that June. Um and then

2:36:02it came back, it was pulled from June

2:36:03and it came back in August.

2:36:06And the procedure is that people apply

2:36:09goes through you. You see who is

2:36:13applicable that meets the standards for

2:36:15who could go on those boards. You

2:36:17present those to just the mayor. He

2:36:20reviews them. He decides which one of

2:36:22those applicants

2:36:24he would like to nominate. He takes that

2:36:26to the council. That's when it gets

2:36:28over.

2:36:29>> Right. Right. So the um the process that

2:36:33we've done

2:36:36six months to a year ago was we put into

2:36:38a spreadsheet all the all the applicants

2:36:41and so all the applicants go on a

2:36:43spreadsheet by board and then we ask the

2:36:46council if there's three vacancies

2:36:48submit three names and so they submit

2:36:50who they would like to see three names

2:36:53are top three the mayor also submits

2:36:55however many positions if there's three

2:36:57he would submit three names as well in

2:36:59an effort to make sure that we were

2:37:01getting information before it came to

2:37:03the council meeting, right? So, we

2:37:05weren't having this debate at the

2:37:07council meeting. So, trying to figure

2:37:09out, okay, where is their consensus of

2:37:11applications

2:37:14and where are there not? And so, we

2:37:16started that process again six to six

2:37:19months to a year ago. And so

2:37:22part of the concern though is that in

2:37:26that

2:37:28sheet you would see that the mayor

2:37:30provided three names, council provided

2:37:33three names and there was not consensus.

2:37:38And so council, the way the current

2:37:40ordinance is written is they can only

2:37:43vote up or down the names that the

2:37:46mayor's recommended

2:37:47>> and they would like to have some say in

2:37:50suggesting their own numbers.

2:37:52>> Yes.

2:37:53>> Okay.

2:37:54>> Consistent with their rules.

2:37:56>> And I sorry prohibit them from

2:37:59encouraging people to apply.

2:38:03So, can anybody on council suggest to a

2:38:05member, a resident, hey, I you had

2:38:08really great questions or I really

2:38:09appreciated your passion on the subject.

2:38:11Why don't you consider applying for

2:38:14>> environmental or whatever,

2:38:16>> they can do that.

2:38:16>> They can do that as well as any member

2:38:19of the elected body, all six.

2:38:21>> So, five council members or the mayor

2:38:23can recommend any candidate just like a

2:38:25town staff member can say, "Hey, I think

2:38:27you have a great perspective. We would

2:38:28love for you to be on the board. could

2:38:30recommend it at starting. They could

2:38:32recommend it at the meeting or it would

2:38:34have to be done in advance because it

2:38:35still have to go through you to go

2:38:36through the application or

2:38:38>> so the the policy the resident

2:38:41administrative policy requires that

2:38:42there be an application on file.

2:38:44>> Okay.

2:38:44>> So some jurisdictions can just

2:38:46willy-nilly put forward a name, but we

2:38:48we require that there at least be an

2:38:49application on file.

2:38:53>> I have a question just just is is is

2:38:57there a possibility

2:39:00that

2:39:01that it could that council between town

2:39:04council meetings goes longer than 30

2:39:06days. Is it could it be 31 days?

2:39:08>> Does the council take off for a month in

2:39:12the summer or any time during the year

2:39:15where this 30 days could be a problem or

2:39:18could we possibly go 31 days?

2:39:21>> So the clock starts from the time that

2:39:22my office sends the packet to the mayor.

2:39:26>> Okay. So if for example we send it June

2:39:281st, we have not historically had a

2:39:31council meeting in July. So that means

2:39:33the mayor has until July 1st to make a

2:39:34recommendation. There is no meeting in

2:39:36July. So he would submit a

2:39:39recommendation July 1st within that 30

2:39:42or June 30th within that 30-day calendar

2:39:44day timeline and then it would go on the

2:39:46first meeting in August.

2:39:49>> So there's no additional

2:39:50>> Yeah. So the 30 days is for the mayor to

2:39:53get back to you with the Not that it go

2:39:56to the council.

2:39:57>> Correct.

2:39:57>> Okay,

2:39:58>> that's very clear. Thank you. Thank you.

2:40:00I was I was concerned, you know, geez

2:40:03possibility of 31 days, you know,

2:40:06instead.

2:40:07>> Right.

2:40:07>> Thank you for clarifying that.

2:40:09>> That's a good point. Great. Great

2:40:10question.

2:40:11>> Your the clerk's role is not defined in

2:40:15the ordinance, not as proposed here. It

2:40:18doesn't.

2:40:19>> Am I

2:40:20>> What do you mean my role?

2:40:21>> Well, I'm looking at U. All right.

2:40:242.12

2:40:27on section E. Membership recommendations

2:40:30made by the mayor shall be provided to

2:40:32the town clerk no less than 30 days

2:40:34calendar days prior to the expiration of

2:40:37a membership term. What happens if you

2:40:40miss a deadline?

2:40:42>> Then I'm accountable to the council.

2:40:43>> Okay.

2:40:45I just think that's a real, you know,

2:40:46that's a risk. It's something could

2:40:48happen, right? And

2:40:49>> that's right.

2:40:51>> Yeah. I mean,

2:40:52>> point on timing. Yeah.

2:40:53>> Yeah. I mean, I would say that this is

2:40:56this is the maximum, right? So, as I've

2:40:59mentioned to the mayor, 30 days is the

2:41:01maximum. So, he may choose to make a

2:41:04recommendation in 10 days, 15 days, 20

2:41:07days. So, this is the maximum allowable

2:41:09time.

2:41:13>> I just um

2:41:16I would really really appreciate if our

2:41:18elected officials would just try to work

2:41:19together. And it feels like if we vote

2:41:21this way, they don't have to.

2:41:23>> And so I I don't care if it's this one

2:41:26or the next one. We have got to start

2:41:28coming together on this. It seems a

2:41:30little I don't understand. I mean, put

2:41:33together just like you put together a

2:41:35list of standards you would like people

2:41:36to hit when they're applying. Hold them

2:41:39to that. You can be a double check. He

2:41:41should definitely be on the a shot

2:41:43clock. No problem with that whatsoever.

2:41:45But I really feel like our elected

2:41:46officials need to work together and and

2:41:49it feels like they could just whoever it

2:41:51is arbitrarily just I don't like it. I'm

2:41:53against it. I'm whatever. And I'm not

2:41:55for that. I feel like we need we need

2:41:58we're better together when we all work

2:42:00together. And I feel like if you're

2:42:02asking my opinion, I'll be like work

2:42:04together.

2:42:05>> That's where I'm that's where I

2:42:08>> and I hate to I don't want to but is

2:42:11this happening because of something? Why

2:42:13is it coming to us now? Like why is this

2:42:15suddenly an issue? Because they're at an

2:42:17impass and so they're punting it to us.

2:42:21>> Try to problem solve for them.

2:42:24>> Yeah. They don't we have to vote on

2:42:25anything that's a UDO amendment and

2:42:27that's what they said this process is

2:42:28part of. That's why they're we're

2:42:30involved. We will recommend and they

2:42:31will do what they want,

2:42:32>> right? They will do if they agree they

2:42:34will agree. If they don't, they won't.

2:42:36Just like other ones that have come

2:42:38before us on the media. Isn't it on the

2:42:41agenda tomorrow?

2:42:42>> I'm sorry.

2:42:43>> Isn't this on the agenda tomorrow?

2:42:44>> It is.

2:42:46>> Well, because planning board has 30 days

2:42:47to make a recommendation. And so

2:42:50tomorrow that expires, right? And so

2:42:54>> yeah,

2:42:54>> I don't have problem with it.

2:42:55>> I'm okay with it except for E. Like I'm

2:42:57fine with the shot clock or whatever. I

2:42:59just feel like they should be or F.

2:43:01Sorry, excuse me.

2:43:03>> So I I'm going to make a recommendation

2:43:05I made last meeting. You guys did not

2:43:08approve.

2:43:10I'mma do it again.

2:43:14>> Currently, the UDO works really good and

2:43:16uh it forces council and the mayor to

2:43:18work together and have have a

2:43:20conversation and I still agree with

2:43:22that.

2:43:23>> I'm going to make a recommendation to

2:43:25>> Before you make that recommendation, can

2:43:27I or may I ask

2:43:30>> how planning staff?

2:43:33>> Oh, they can't make it.

2:43:34>> They don't have an opinion

2:43:35>> and we don't need to pull them into

2:43:37fair. We're not making a recommendation

2:43:39because it's not based on nothing to do

2:43:42with

2:43:44>> and just for the record, the clerk's

2:43:45office doesn't have a recommendation in

2:43:47this either. This is a request by the

2:43:49town council. We have positions that are

2:43:52vacant. We need a process in order to

2:43:54fill them. And so we have continuously

2:43:58brought a process to council this entire

2:44:02year, March, April, June, August. So we

2:44:07don't have a position either in terms of

2:44:09a recommendation. We feel like this was

2:44:11a

2:44:13direction that was given to us at the

2:44:15August work session and so we were asked

2:44:18to place it on the next available

2:44:19planning board meeting and the next

2:44:21available council meeting. So that's why

2:44:22you are seeing it come as quickly from

2:44:25the August discussion.

2:44:27and we can tell and recommend that

2:44:30boards and mayors and everyone works

2:44:32nicely forever and ever, but these

2:44:33things change every couple years and we

2:44:35can't guarantee that it happens. So, I

2:44:38think that putting these guidelines in

2:44:40place is helpful. I'm going to recommend

2:44:42that we approve the amendments to the

2:44:44UDO with the exception that we strike

2:44:47the first sentence. I'm going slow for

2:44:50our typist back there.

2:44:54>> [laughter]

2:44:55>> uh strike the first sentence of 2.1.2 2

2:44:58B4 F and the first sentence of 2.1.3

2:45:04B4 E which

2:45:08maintains the balance between mayorship

2:45:12and council but removes the ability of

2:45:17the council to override mayor's

2:45:20appointments.

2:45:23>> But okay,

2:45:25>> but you're saying eliminate the first

2:45:26sentence. Yes.

2:45:28>> So the second sentence says if no

2:45:30recommendation is provided by mayor

2:45:31within the applicable time frame

2:45:32established in subsection, the town

2:45:34council may appoint a qualified

2:45:36applicant without a recommendation.

2:45:37Mayor

2:45:38>> shot clock ran out.

2:45:39>> Yeah.

2:45:39>> So the issue I've got a little bit with

2:45:42that is

2:45:44it gives him a a one and done.

2:45:46>> I I totally concur with that.

2:45:48>> He's got she's got 30 days and the

2:45:49council comes back and says,

2:45:52"I [clears throat] don't like Susie

2:45:53Jones. This is my reason."

2:45:57But they haven't shared it with the

2:45:58mayor prior to that.

2:46:01>> We get a reset on the shot clock,

2:46:02>> right? I mean, I would think that there

2:46:03should be at least one reset on the shot

2:46:06clock.

2:46:06>> I think it should be all together.

2:46:12>> Sure. [laughter] You're welcome to um

2:46:15recommend how you see fit. I will say

2:46:17that um

2:46:21there have been an occasion or two where

2:46:24the same name is presented again and so

2:46:27that is another issue that this

2:46:30ordinance is trying to address.

2:46:32>> Right.

2:46:32>> So when you say that the council says

2:46:36hey we don't agree

2:46:38what stops the mayor from putting

2:46:40forward the same name again?

2:46:41>> There's nothing but you're at least

2:46:42giving him the second chance.

2:46:45So I I would offer that that that's

2:46:47>> that's what I'm saying. It's he's got 30

2:46:50days and at the end of the 30 days and

2:46:52the town council doesn't approve, he's

2:46:54got one more chance within 30 days.

2:46:58>> So then he recommends the same person

2:47:00because he still wants that one and then

2:47:01the town council

2:47:03>> then if he decides to do that then the

2:47:05town council can choose a person of

2:47:07their likely

2:47:09>> because they've already said so he won't

2:47:11put it up, right?

2:47:16I mean, that just there needs to be a

2:47:18shot clock, but I [clears throat] just

2:47:20don't like a single one off is my my

2:47:23fault.

2:47:24>> That makes sense because then you're the

2:47:25town council's allowing him to make the

2:47:28recommendation that he wants,

2:47:30>> right?

2:47:31>> They say no, they give him another

2:47:32chance. If he recommends

2:47:34>> hopefully between those

2:47:36>> when they say no, hopefully that next 30

2:47:39days there's discussions amongst them to

2:47:43say Why didn't you like this person?

2:47:47>> If you didn't like this person because

2:47:48of blah blah blah blah blah, can we fix

2:47:50it? If not, okay, that's irreparable,

2:47:53but I know that I've got one more shot.

2:47:57>> Yeah.

2:48:01>> Conversely, you could all disagree on

2:48:03some standards for board members and let

2:48:05that just be it and interview people

2:48:07that meet them and then it's just a

2:48:09personality thing and we can all move on

2:48:10with our lives. It just it just seems

2:48:12silly. As Alan said, that recommendation

2:48:15has been pending

2:48:17should be 30 days.

2:48:19>> No, I just

2:48:21>> I get that they want to turn limit and

2:48:22I'm fine with that. I just really think,

2:48:27>> you know, missing my small group so I

2:48:29can sit here and the second sentence

2:48:31says that no recommendation provided at

2:48:33all. It doesn't say that he provided

2:48:34when they didn't like it. It says if no

2:48:36recommendation is provided by the mayor

2:48:38within the applicable time, then that

2:48:39they can appoint I mean

2:48:41>> semantics. But yeah, you're right. one

2:48:42and done because he needs to come with a

2:48:44name. I mean I I need you trying to add

2:48:46another 30 days. It's

2:48:49>> Yeah,

2:48:50>> I mean I have a different

2:48:53having seen having seen some of the

2:48:55council meetings

2:48:56>> to everyone's point. He's brought up a

2:48:59name and they didn't like it and he

2:49:02brought up the same name and they didn't

2:49:04like it and then so then you then you're

2:49:07caught in a vicious cycle.

2:49:10But that's why I say, you know,

2:49:12here's person A. If it's not good,

2:49:16hopefully it opens the door for them to

2:49:18have discussions to find out why person

2:49:20A wasn't good and come up with plan B.

2:49:24>> So, is there something that needs to be

2:49:26said that

2:49:28we don't want to say that because if

2:49:30they come to some resolution while

2:49:31they're discussing it, then we could

2:49:34recommend that again if they've had some

2:49:37constructive conversation

2:49:39as to what

2:49:40>> correct limitations were of that

2:49:42individual and

2:49:45council acquieses.

2:49:46>> Yeah,

2:49:52>> I have a motion on the table and I think

2:49:54Mark seconded it.

2:49:56>> Oh, did we have a motion to second?

2:49:57>> Yeah, we did.

2:49:59>> Yep.

2:50:00>> Yeah, I didn't think so.

2:50:03>> Now, what is Let's review that real

2:50:05quick. So we just is that removing

2:50:06leaving the first sentence and

2:50:08>> removing the first sentence of F in the

2:50:12first one

2:50:14>> of adjustments.

2:50:23>> Okay. So we have a motion and a second

2:50:26on the table. All in favor say I. I.

2:50:30>> All oppose.

2:50:32No. No.

2:50:33>> Motion denied.

2:50:35Back to the board.

2:50:36>> Is that a count?

2:50:37>> I'm sorry.

2:50:39>> Yes.

2:50:40>> We had two yeses.

2:50:41>> I guess it was just three.

2:50:44>> Sorry. Three.

2:50:45>> I'm just curious. I'm sorry.

2:50:47>> Back to the board.

2:50:58>> Yes.

2:50:59>> Can you make your motion?

2:51:02>> No.

2:51:04try to get a mandative field of words so

2:51:06it makes sense

2:51:09under F.

2:51:11I agree with Liz in striking the first

2:51:13sentence

2:51:14but then saying if no recommendation is

2:51:17provided by the mayor within the

2:51:18applicable time frame established in

2:51:20subsection E

2:51:31would say that if if no if if the

2:51:34recommendation provided by the mayor

2:51:36within the applicable time frame

2:51:38established

2:51:40is not approved approved by the town

2:51:41council.

2:51:44The mayor then has one more 30-day

2:51:48time period to appoint a qualified

2:51:50applicant.

2:51:51>> So, so I think what I'm hearing you say,

2:51:53okay, the second sentence,

2:51:56>> right,

2:51:56>> is addressing the shot clock in E,

2:52:00>> right? So what I hear you saying is that

2:52:03in the first sentence of F is not

2:52:05striking the first sentence of F

2:52:09um or striking it but saying

2:52:14the town council may elect not to

2:52:16appoint

2:52:18in which case the mayor shall have

2:52:20another 30 calendar days to appoint

2:52:23>> one more

2:52:23>> shall have one more 30 day calendar

2:52:26period.

2:52:31So, the suggestion is to amend these

2:52:34first sentences, not strike,

2:52:37>> and somehow work in what Christy said

2:52:39about why can't we all just get along?

2:52:40[gasps]

2:52:42>> Yeah, I would.

2:52:42>> I'm hoping they have to do that talk to

2:52:45one another, but you can't.

2:52:46>> Okay. So to amend the first sentence of

2:52:49of um F in the planning war section, E

2:52:52in the board of adjustment section to

2:52:54allow the mayor one additional 30

2:52:58calendar day period if the council

2:53:03>> does not appoint the applicant

2:53:05recommended by the

2:53:06>> first applicant.

2:53:07>> Are you guys saying then the town

2:53:08council can choose after that?

2:53:10>> I think after that they can. I mean you

2:53:12got to go you got to move down the road

2:53:13at some point in time,

2:53:14>> right? Like we can't be at an impass

2:53:16forever where there has to be

2:53:18>> if we're giving 30 then we're giving 30.

2:53:20>> If you don't if you don't do that then

2:53:22what happens is the the a mayor appoints

2:53:25some per person A

2:53:28then he appoints person A again. Then he

2:53:30appoints person A again you know so at

2:53:33some point in time you got to read the

2:53:35tea leaves and understand that

2:53:38the writing's on the wall for for person

2:53:40A. So who else is out there that's

2:53:43qualified? And you hope that there's

2:53:44some conversation that happens there.

2:53:46>> That's right. That's what I'm saying.

2:53:48You're putting the emphasis on them to

2:53:50have the conversation.

2:53:51>> Yeah.

2:53:52>> Alan, what are what's the Have you ever

2:53:54had a scenario where

2:53:57a backup applicant is presented in the

2:54:00same meeting after the first one's been

2:54:03declined?

2:54:05Um, so no, not here, but um,

2:54:11yes, I mean the the mayor has said in

2:54:14the past that he has other names that he

2:54:15would put forward. Um, when we went

2:54:18through this process at the last

2:54:19meeting, he did not put forward any

2:54:21additional names. Um,

2:54:24okay.

2:54:25>> But he has had more than one. If there's

2:54:28one position to fill, sometimes he's had

2:54:30more than one name that he's willing to

2:54:32to rotate and switch to.

2:54:35I so two things um to this

2:54:37recommendation or the or the proposed

2:54:39motion that's been mentioned

2:54:41the 30-day clock starts when

2:54:45>> at the end of the town council when the

2:54:47first person is

2:54:49not appointed.

2:54:50>> Okay.

2:54:52>> Just so we're clear because we're going

2:54:53to get that question.

2:54:54>> No, no. Yeah. Just so

2:54:55>> any better to say at the next the next

2:54:57council meeting

2:55:00>> they meet every two weeks.

2:55:02>> Yeah.

2:55:02>> Okay.

2:55:03when I think he said 30 days

2:55:05>> calendar days

2:55:08>> and and again there but there's

2:55:12>> the hope is that it doesn't go 30

2:55:14calendar days.

2:55:15>> Yeah, I got you.

2:55:16>> I mean he could he legitimately could

2:55:18come to the clerk's office the next day

2:55:21and say, "Okay,

2:55:23this person wasn't I don't I don't think

2:55:25there's a path forward. Here's Sam.

2:55:29Let's put Sam." And then Sam's name

2:55:30could go on the calendar for the next

2:55:32town council meeting.

2:55:34>> But again, Sam would have to have the

2:55:35application filled out and presented to

2:55:37Alan.

2:55:37>> That's right.

2:55:39>> Right. So, so to be So, to be clear, so

2:55:41we when we receive the applications,

2:55:43Ashley does her review making sure that

2:55:45they're current on property taxes, not

2:55:47behind on utility bills, they are in the

2:55:49corporate limits, all the things. And

2:55:51then there's a packet that's put

2:55:52together that's then sent to the mayor.

2:55:55So he gets what we call an applicants at

2:55:56a glance which has all the qualified

2:55:58applicants for any particular position

2:56:01and then it asks him to provide however

2:56:03many number of recommendations based on

2:56:05the applicable positions. And so that

2:56:07same packet would then go to the

2:56:09council. And so we give them the packet

2:56:11and they typically don't choose anyone

2:56:13that's outside of that packet but the

2:56:15policy says they've got to have an

2:56:17application on file. So

2:56:19>> if they do choose something then

2:56:22>> um

2:56:22>> what happens if the mayor recommends

2:56:24somebody council says no and then what

2:56:27you said I think I was understanding

2:56:29that correct that he could then

2:56:32nominate them for a different board and

2:56:34then the council says no and then he

2:56:36could nominate the same person a for a

2:56:39third board. I mean that that's a

2:56:42>> that's occur that's another issue. So,

2:56:44with the 30-day

2:56:47proposal, my understanding is that is

2:56:49per board,

2:56:50>> right?

2:56:51>> Right. So, we're not talking about

2:56:53>> per position.

2:56:54>> Yeah. So, that's that's different.

2:56:57>> Yeah.

2:56:58>> Which could open up a whole another

2:56:59thing.

2:57:00>> Right.

2:57:01>> Applicant B is turned down.

2:57:04Did it start it all over or you saying

2:57:06they can one?

2:57:08>> Yeah. You got you do you got one 30day

2:57:10time period. Applicant A is

2:57:14not not supported by the council.

2:57:17>> He's got 30 days for B.

2:57:19>> What if they don't support applicant B?

2:57:21>> Then it's then the council's at their

2:57:24>> they get a point.

2:57:25>> Then there's no point

2:57:26>> from from the applicant

2:57:28>> from the Yeah. Right. Right. But I mean

2:57:29that's the number comes up to the town

2:57:30council

2:57:31>> which they can make a recommendation and

2:57:32it still would have to be voted by the

2:57:34entire council. So like a one person at

2:57:36the end of the day

2:57:38>> it's a recommendation with the vote of

2:57:39the council.

2:57:40>> Right. So in Jeff's way, we really are

2:57:43giving the mayor two opportunities, 30

2:57:46days a piece to repres to present

2:57:48somebody. So 60 days having two months

2:57:52to find somebody.

2:57:54>> I think what we can't what we can't

2:57:56control is how many times they say no

2:57:58just to say no and how many times he

2:57:59would do the other. We can't control any

2:58:01of that.

2:58:01>> That takes out the value of the mayor's

2:58:04recommendation.

2:58:05>> And if they do that, then

2:58:06>> put a little switch in the balance in

2:58:08the power. That's why I don't agree with

2:58:09the whole sentencing, but that's just my

2:58:13we're working on a motion at the moment.

2:58:15So,

2:58:16>> and I will say for what it's worth,

2:58:18while to your point, it may appear as

2:58:20though they don't get along with this

2:58:23particular item.

2:58:25I will say I've been here since 2022.

2:58:28They get along for the most part and the

2:58:30appointment process has been pretty okay

2:58:35except for one or two positions. So,

2:58:38this is not a theme that occurs very

2:58:41often. But when it does happen, what is

2:58:44what is council's

2:58:46response? H how how can they move

2:58:48forward? Um and there's not been that

2:58:52option. So, I want to put it on record

2:58:55that this is not a problem that happens

2:58:57often and that this council

2:59:0195% of the time I'm probably one of the

2:59:03closest ones to them get along very

2:59:05well. Um,

2:59:06>> so then is this a answer in search of a

2:59:08problem,

2:59:09>> right? and

2:59:11>> in response to it was in response to

2:59:13council's direct

2:59:14>> and my hope is that

2:59:17>> it it forces

2:59:19>> if there's a contentious individual that

2:59:23is whose name's on the ballot that it

2:59:26forces them to have a conversation

2:59:27sooner rather than later.

2:59:28>> Hope so.

2:59:29>> Or it takes away one side balance. Look

2:59:32at

2:59:34>> there is that because we're only putting

2:59:36requirements on him and we're not doing

2:59:38anything on the council. And then this

2:59:39is where I was like, I don't want to get

2:59:40in the middle of your of your playground

2:59:42fight. And it sounds like 95% of the

2:59:43time you handle it. So then just handle

2:59:45it.

2:59:46>> I mean, regardless, council is seeing

2:59:47this tonight. So I think we should put

2:59:48our best foot forward in making a

2:59:49recommendation. And Jeff, you were on to

2:59:52something with

2:59:53>> Yeah.

2:59:53>> balancing that out.

2:59:54>> That's right. I mean

2:59:57we

2:59:58>> we've heard from both parties and that

2:59:59seems to be

3:00:00>> I mean there are limitations somewhat in

3:00:02that where [laughter]

3:00:04>> can reread [clears throat] the vice

3:00:07>> so this is how I have um what I think

3:00:11you're asking for the first sentence to

3:00:13say okay notwithstanding anything to the

3:00:16contrary in subsections A through D that

3:00:19stay the same [clears throat]

3:00:21the mayor shall have one additional 30

3:00:24calendar day period from the town

3:00:26council vote to recommend another

3:00:28applicant. If the town council does not

3:00:30vote to appoint the applicant

3:00:32recommended by the mayor, if the town

3:00:34council elects not to appoint the second

3:00:36recommendation from the mayor, then the

3:00:38town council shall appoint another

3:00:40qualified applicant without further

3:00:42recommendation from the mayor.

3:00:44>> I'd like to change that.

3:00:47>> Well, May is permissive. Sha shall is

3:00:50what we have to use in the

3:00:53>> we need to have the word

3:00:54in there somewhere.

3:00:56>> Initial is that?

3:00:57>> Yeah, I think that needs to be in there

3:00:59when you're talking about

3:01:01>> the

3:01:03initial appointment.

3:01:04>> It doesn't appoint the initial

3:01:05applicant.

3:01:06>> Yes, I got it.

3:01:07>> Yep. Thank you.

3:01:16Okay, we have so we have

3:01:18>> what said

3:01:19>> and I do feel that this is really we're

3:01:22giving the mayor another chance but the

3:01:26so there is some give and take there

3:01:28because the town council is allowing him

3:01:31more opportunity and again goal being

3:01:34conversation right that's what we want

3:01:36>> more opportunity already

3:01:39>> okay Is there a second?

3:01:42>> There was Mark.

3:01:43>> I'll make it.

3:01:44>> So, we we have a motion and a second.

3:01:47All in favor say I.

3:01:49>> All oppose? No.

3:01:51>> No.

3:01:53>> Motion carries.

3:01:54>> One minute.

3:01:55>> Christie

3:01:56>> and Keith.

3:02:00>> Yep.

3:02:01>> Yeah. I just don't know where it is.

3:02:03>> Yeah, we're going have to work on that.

3:02:05Okay. Motion carries. So, now we will

3:02:08move on. Need a motion to adjurnn.

3:02:11>> Motion to adjurnn.

3:02:12>> Second.

3:02:12>> Motion. We have a second. All in favor

3:02:14say I.

3:02:15>> All oppose.

3:02:17>> Have a good evening.