Smithfield council denies developer plan to replace approved apartments with townhomes at Findlay Landing

The Town of Smithfield council voted to deny a developer request to revise the Findlay Landing conditional zoning (CZ‑24‑6), blocking a plan to swap multifamily apartments for a townhouse product on a 47.8‑acre parcel adjacent to US‑70 Business across from an Amazon warehouse.

Planning staff summarized the proposal as an alternate master plan for the Findlay Landing parcel (Johnston County tax ID 1507735H) that would convert the portion previously proposed for garden‑style apartments into a townhouse layout and public streets. Staff said the plan would add about 3,724 linear feet of new public streets, provide sidewalks on both sides of streets, and retain open‑space buffers and stormwater ponds consistent with the prior master plan. Staff recommended approval with one multi‑part condition to codify the reduced right‑of‑way and architectural standards the developer supplied.

Developer Joe Faulkner of CE Group told council the change was driven by the lending market. "One of the reasons for the change here from the apartments is that I think all of you can appreciate the current environment for multifamily lending is a little more challenging than what it was when we originally started," Faulkner said, and added that strong builder interest and different price points for a for‑sale product also motivated the change. He provided approximate floor plans of about 1,581 and 1,858 square feet and said the product would be for sale through the national builder (Lennar Homes), though units could later be owned by investors.

Council members probed several topics during a lengthy exchange: whether the amenities approved for the apartment concept (notably a pool and pool house) would be available to the wider subdivision or reserved for apartment residents; the impact of changing 360 previously approved apartments to a mix that included additional townhomes (transcript references 160 and 168 or 368 units at different points in the discussion); parking and driveway length given single‑car garages on the proposed townhomes; and the consequences for Smithfield’s overall housing mix and affordability.

Longtime resident Angie McClure spoke during public comment, asking the council to consider impacts on nearby farms and to weigh airport noise, property values and traffic. "Some of the changes that you will be deciding on in the near future could most certainly, positively or negatively impact our way of life on a farm," McClure said.

After questions and public comment, a councilmember moved to deny the alternate plan (motion recorded in the meeting as made by 'Mr. Smear'); the motion was seconded and passed by voice vote. The council did not adopt the developer’s alternate townhouse plan.

What happens next: the developer retains the option to pursue previously approved plans, and the council’s vote leaves in place the prior approvals for apartments unless the developer returns with a revised, acceptable proposal. The council’s discussion signaled continued concern about preserving a balance of housing types and maintaining certain subdivision amenities for affordability and younger residents.