The Apex Planning Board voted Dec. 8 to deny a rezoning request for two parcels on Casselberry Road after staff and multiple residents said the proposal does not fit the area’s rural character and could threaten nearby watershed resources.

June, the town planner presenting the case, told the board that the applicant sought a conditional low-density residential rezoning that would change the land-use classification from “rural density residential” to “low density residential,” allow a maximum density of 1.4 dwelling units per acre and set a minimum lot size of 22,500 square feet. June recommended denial, saying the proposal is inconsistent with the Apex 2045 land use plan and with surrounding neighborhood character given smaller lots and higher density than adjacent properties.

Residents who live at the end of Castleberry Road urged denial during public comment. Tom Kindig, who identified himself as a Sleepy Valley resident at 409 Sleepy Valley Road, said the neighborhood’s lots range from about 2 to 21 acres with an average around 6 acres and described long-standing rural patterns, wildlife and a close-knit community. “This proposed development with its low density zoning is considerably higher density than our existing rural community and much higher than what's called for in the town's land use plan,” Kindig said, urging the board to follow staff’s recommendation and deny the request.

Eddie Wasdell, also a Sleepy Valley resident, said paving the end of Castleberry Road and creating Council Drive would invite more traffic and faster speeds and would undermine neighbors’ privacy and safety. “Clearing this land and putting in a paved road is completely against the character of our neighborhood,” Wasdell said, noting concerns about impacts to wildlife and the nearby Jordan Lake watershed.

Will Norton, the applicant’s engineering representative, said the proposal covers roughly three acres split across two parcels, that minimum lot sizes proposed are consistent with some nearby developed lots, and that the applicant added several conditions including landscape buffers, fencing, and increases in proposed active solar units. Norton said the intent is annexation to town services rather than immediate redevelopment.

Board members focused on compatibility and location. Multiple members said the site’s proximity to protected open space around Jordan Lake, the proposed paving of previously unpaved sections and the scale of change in a long-established rural neighborhood made it difficult to support the rezoning. Keith moved to deny rezoning case 25CZ11; Christie seconded. The motion carried by voice vote.

After the vote, staff led the board through the statutory consistency considerations and recorded the reasons for finding the rezoning inconsistent with the 2045 land use map, citing incompatibility with surrounding low‑density character and concerns about adverse visual and environmental impacts.

The board’s denial keeps the site within its current county classification unless the applicant appeals, revises the proposal, or seeks a future application; the transcript records a voice vote but does not include a roll‑call tally of individual votes.