Cary board leans toward developer A to begin negotiations on Maplewood redevelopment after hours of resident concerns

The Village of Cary Committee of the Whole signaled a board-level consensus to begin negotiations with the development team labeled “Team A” on a request-for-proposals for the Maplewood property, but stressed that no final decisions on density, price or site plan have been made.

The board’s move to open negotiations follows a lengthy public comment period in which nearby residents raised concerns about height and density, potential traffic impacts, limited public outreach and the city’s earlier $5.5 million expenditure connected to the property and the school district.

The Maplewood parcel was acquired through an intergovernmental agreement with District 26; Director Simmons told the committee that the $5.5 million figure includes the district’s asking price for the school parcel (about $2.75 million) plus funds used to acquire and prepare a second site for the district’s transportation center. The board and staff emphasized that the next step is negotiation with a preferred developer and that any redevelopment will still require formal zoning approvals and public hearings under Cary’s Planned Unit Development (PUD) and zoning processes.

Staff summarized three proposals offered in response to the village RFP. Development Team A proposed roughly 50 for-sale townhomes around the site perimeter and apartments in the northeast portion, with indoor parking in buildings and a park in the southwest corner. Team B offered a mixed plan similar to Team A but had proposed taller, denser building elements in revised elevations (staff described 5–6 story segments in portions of that plan). Team C proposed a fully rental scheme with a mix of two- and four‑story rental buildings.

Several nearby residents questioned outreach and transparency. “You are building a road in my backyard right past my back yard fence line. And you are building massive apartment complexes just a block away,” resident Rachel Byerly said, adding that the changes would “be completely annihilated” the neighborhood character she and neighbors value. Multiple speakers urged more direct notice to neighbors — mailers, door hangers and a neighborhood-specific text alert list — and the board pledged to expand communications, create a dedicated Maplewood page on the village website and consider a Maplewood-specific text-caster subscription.

On traffic and access, staff noted the project would tie into a planned Maplewood access road running on the north side of the property; two access points to that road are shown in the proposals and a coordinated traffic signal at the Algonquin/Industrial Drive intersection was discussed as part of regional coordination. Director Simmons said the selected developer will be required to fund a traffic study as part of the zoning and engineering review.

Board members emphasized several constraints: the selection tonight would only identify a preferred developer for negotiation, not approve plan details, density, or public‑facing documents. Trustee McAlpine, Trustee Weinheimer, Trustee Collier, Trustee Dudek and others voiced support for Team A because it included owner-occupied townhomes as a perimeter buffer, indoor parking options and a less dense layout than other proposals. Trustee Stefani said she opposed any building over five stories.

Residents also asked about price and financial terms; staff said the sale price and redevelopment agreement terms will be negotiated and presented to the village board and to the public at a later meeting. Staff and the mayor repeatedly told attendees there will be multiple future public meetings, open houses required by the PUD process, direct mail notification to property owners within the statutory radius for zoning hearings, and opportunities for comment at public hearings.

The committee concluded its Maplewood discussion with direction to staff to begin negotiations with the selected developer and to step up neighborhood outreach. The meeting ended with a routine motion to adjourn that was approved.

The board has not adopted any zoning change, executed any redevelopment agreement, nor approved final sale terms; the PUD/zoning review and any required public hearings remain to be scheduled and noticed to affected property owners.