Cary board approves preliminary development agreement for Maplewood site after hours of public comment

The Village of Cary on March 18 approved a preliminary development agreement with a team led by Clark & Associates and JM Developers LLC to study redevelopment of the former Maplewood School property, directing staff to negotiate detailed terms and permit the development team to perform due diligence over an initial 150‑day period.

The move begins a formal but preliminary phase of review and does not authorize construction. Community Development Director Brian Simmons told the board the agreement would allow the developers to perform soil borings, engineering analysis and site planning and would create opportunities for public open houses, zoning hearings and a future formal redevelopment agreement to be brought back to the board.

Why it matters: The 6.5‑acre Maplewood parcel sits next to established single‑family neighborhoods south of downtown Cary and has drawn repeated proposals since the school closed in 2010. Residents filled the boardroom Wednesday to press for lower density, preserved park space and traffic and stormwater protections; many speakers said the draft concept’s five‑story apartment buildings and overall unit count were incompatible with the neighborhood. The board and developer said the preliminary step is intended to surface those issues and allow revisions before any final approvals.

Board action and what it allows The resolution approved Wednesday authorizes a predevelopment agreement with a development team that includes Clark & Associates, Kortigan Clark Architects, JTE Real Estate Services and related partners listed in the agreement as the consenting entities. Under the approved terms, the developers may perform due diligence work such as geotechnical testing and refined site engineering; the village and developer may negotiate incentives and a formal redevelopment agreement during the study period. Simmons said the village expects any final plan to return to the village board later in 2025 if the parties reach agreement.

Developers at the meeting said the concept shown to the board is a starting point and pledged to conduct community engagement. John Kortigan of Kortigan Clark Architects called the project “a team effort” and said the developers would “go above and beyond” in outreach. Michael Pulakidis of JTE said he had arranged to attend the meeting in person to answer questions.

Public reaction and concerns Dozens of residents spoke during a lengthy public comment period. Recurring concerns included density of the concept plan, the prospect of tall apartment buildings adjacent to single‑family yards, impacts on neighborhood traffic, parking pressure and lighting spilling into existing homes. Several residents explicitly requested that the village preserve park space or ballfields on the site; others urged for-sale single‑family or townhouse alternatives rather than a primarily rental model.

Village responses and assurances Mayor (unnamed) and trustees repeatedly told the room the vote did not approve a final plan: it only allows staff to negotiate and the developer to test the site. The mayor and staff said the village will require standard studies — traffic, stormwater detention and zoning entitlement — and that any incentives, including TIF‑related assistance, would be negotiated later and brought back for public and board review. The mayor reiterated the village’s intention that the site include a dedicated public park and said the village will require stormwater detention and a traffic review as part of the entitlement process.

Vote and next steps The board approved the preliminary development agreement by roll call. Recorded votes in the transcript are: Trustee Collier — yes; Trustee Rick Walrath (via Teams) — yes; Trustee Dudek — yes; Trustee Stefani — yes; Trustee Weinheimer — no; Trustee McAlpine — yes. After the vote the village will continue the developer’s due diligence and public outreach, and any formal redevelopment agreement or zoning petition would return to the board for a public hearing and vote.

What remains unresolved Simmons told the board there are open items that will be refined during due diligence, including stormwater sizing, final unit counts, the precise mix of for‑sale vs. rental housing and any potential incentive package. He also said staff had received recent questions about an individual affiliated with one of the development entities and that staff will continue to review that matter during the predevelopment period.

The village encouraged residents to participate in upcoming open houses and zoning proceedings and said staff will post project updates via the village’s notification channels. No construction is authorized by the agreement; the earliest permanent construction the presentation estimated would begin is 2026, subject to approvals.