Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sidewalks topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Neighbors clash over Hilltop sidewalks plan; trustees hear strong, split public comment
Summary
A proposed $480,000 sidewalk project in the Hilltop subdivision prompted heated public comment at the Feb. 11 CARy workshop. Residents voiced safety concerns, disagreement about sidewalk placement and frustration over who would benefit; trustees heard both support and opposition and did not take final action.
A plan to install sidewalks in the Hilltop subdivision — a project staff estimated at about $480,000 — drew strongly divided comments from residents and a direct request for board direction during the Village of Cary’s Feb. 11 capital improvement workshop.
The village’s presentation described an engineering design that places orange‑highlighted sidewalk segments around portions of the subdivision; staff said the design emerged from multiple public meetings and attempts to balance competing views in the neighborhood. Staff told the board there is no outside grant identified for the project and asked trustees whether to pursue the work in 2025–26.
Several residents opposed the configuration shown in the plan, saying it would place sidewalks in locations that require children to cross streets to reach them and would not deliver sidewalks for every household. Resident John Robock said the design reflected an effort “to appease the neighborhood” and called the plan a cost‑conscious compromise. Several speakers argued that if sidewalks are installed, they should be installed for all properties rather than piecemeal.
Other residents urged the board to move forward. Resident Ellen Branson said as a parent she favored “having something is better than nothing,” adding that partial sidewalks would still keep some people out of the roadway. Resident Judy Middlestead said property line questions had been investigated and asked staff to clarify whether recent parcel research changed which properties would be affected.
Trustees emphasized that the workshop was discussion only and that staff sought direction rather than approval. No formal vote was taken; staff indicated they would take public feedback into account and asked the board whether to advance the project for inclusion in next year’s budget. The item will return for further discussion; residents were told the CIP slides and video would be posted online for review.
