The Village of Cary on Aug. 5 approved a resolution granting a 90-day extension to the preliminary development agreement for the site known as the Maplewood School property while developers and staff complete financial terms and finalize the redevelopment agreement. The board voted yes on the roll call: Trustee Dudek, Trustee Stefani, Trustee McCallpine, Trustee Priscina and Trustee Walrath; Trustee Collier was absent. The motion was moved and seconded and carried.

The extension allows Courtigan Clark and Associates and JM Developers LLC additional time to finish studies and community-informed design work and return a final redevelopment agreement to the board by the end of the year, village staff said. Mike, a representative of the development team, told the board the team has completed market, impact and financial studies and conducted two rounds of community outreach. “We are measuring twice and we want to cut once,” Mike said, describing the extension as necessary to finalize the project without repeated renegotiations.

The issue drew multiple public comments at the start of the meeting from residents of the nearby Cambria and New Haven neighborhoods who said opening New Haven Drive to connect the new development to surrounding arteries would increase traffic, create safety hazards and reduce neighborhood livability. Tom Gillis, 26 New Haven Drive, said comments at a prior zoning meeting from “Mr. DeRosa,” identified by a resident as the development owner, suggested the owner wanted New Haven Drive opened to improve project value; Gillis said that statement implied the owner was willing to harm the neighborhood for profit. “He doesn't care if he destroys our neighborhood just so his bottom line is better,” Gillis said.

Other residents asked the board to require additional traffic analysis at peak periods. Bar Birmingham of 1124 East Camp, Danbury Lane, asked the board to “take this into consideration” and recommended a traffic study during school start times and when buses and park activity coincide. Rich Yell of 1409 New Haven Drive said the developer’s earlier traffic study had assumed New Haven Drive would be a connector roadway and stressed the street is a residential local roadway with design features that discourage through traffic. Chris Reiche of 446 Lloyd Street told the board that another downtown proposal — described by a commenter as the Maplewood downtown property — could add hundreds of new trips; Reiche said the village lacks funding to repair existing streets and expressed skepticism about whether proposed tax increases would be directed to road repairs.

Village staff described the extension as administrative: the additional time is limited to 90 days and does not change substantive terms of the agreement. A village staff member identified as the scribe said staff and the development team have been coordinating plan modifications, financial work and public outreach and that the extension is intended to allow the parties to finish those materials. Mike said the team plans to update its market (absorption) report in September; he said the initial report dated to May or June and that the final market analysis would be kept in draft until updated.

Board members who spoke in favor of the extension said the community outreach and additional review were appropriate. Trustee Dudek and Mayor Mark Koenig both said they supported giving developers the time to incorporate resident feedback and finalize deliverables; several trustees emphasized that the village had “one chance” to get the redevelopment right.

Discussion only, directions and formal action were distinct in the meeting. Discussion points included resident safety, driveway/parking impacts during construction in nearby townhouse areas, and whether a traffic signal or other mitigation would be justified. Directional items recorded in the meeting included the developer’s commitment to update the market study (anticipated in September) and staff’s plan to continue negotiations; the board’s formal action was adoption of the 90-day extension resolution. The transcript did not record a vote to open New Haven Drive or a specific mitigation plan; those matters remain subject to later review as part of the redevelopment agreement.

The board asked staff and the developer to return with the final redevelopment agreement and financials; no additional formal conditions or amendments to the development terms were recorded in the motion on Aug. 5.