Council tables Maplewood rezoning after residents raise traffic and child-safety concerns

City Council continued a public hearing on CZ-1124, a conditional rezoning request affecting a property adjacent to Maplewood and Goldsboro, after multiple residents raised traffic and child-safety concerns and the developer agreed to study access and safety changes.

The hearing drew multiple Maplewood residents who said the neighborhood has limited access and high traffic. Jason Donovan, identifying himself as “one of the newer members of Maplewood,” said he was not against business expansion but called the current strip mall “already in a bit of disarray” and flagged crime and broken glass near walkways. Boris Rabiek, who said he has lived in Maplewood for 40 years, said a prior development proposal had been turned down and that Maplewood has only two ways in and out — Maplewood Drive and Smith Drive — and that adding a new driveway would worsen congestion.

Residents also raised safety concerns tied to a proposed dry pond and to children walking through the area. Robert Freeman, a resident of Goldsboro and Maplewood, called out the driveway location on Maplewood Drive and said a pond could increase mosquito problems and risk to children walking in the neighborhood. Rick Sessions and other neighbors voiced similar opposition to the rezoning in its present form.

Developer Rick Sumner, president of Wooten Development, said the property is already zoned O&I (Office and Institutional) and that a dry pond is required for stormwater and nitrogen runoff control. Sumner offered several commitments in response to neighbors: fencing around the dry pond, restricting rear parking to employees, working with tenants to keep the lot clean, adjusting dumpster placement to reduce truck traffic through the neighborhood, and revising lighting so fixtures point away from homes.

Sumner also said the plan would add no more than five businesses to the site and that the back-of-property access was intended mainly for employees and service trucks. “It is already zoned, O and I,” Sumner said. “So if I put a building there with what we already can, you're still gonna have a dry pond.” He added he was willing to consider removing or altering the Maplewood access point to limit cut-through traffic.

Council members probed whether the Maplewood entrance could be eliminated and whether access could be oriented off Berkeley Road so service and emergency vehicles could still reach the rear without creating a cut-through for neighborhood traffic. Councilwoman Matthews asked the developer to “explore, or would you be willing to commit to doing away with the Maplewood entrance?” Sumner said he would “look at that” and that the parties could “work it out.”

Given outstanding questions about access, fencing and other site details, councilmember discussion culminated in a motion to continue the public hearing to a date certain. The Council moved and seconded a motion to continue the hearing to the second meeting in February for further revisions and review; the motion passed with no opposition. The public hearing will be resumed at the council’s second meeting in February for additional consideration of revised plans and conditions.

Next steps include the developer revising the site plan to address the fencing, pond safety, lighting and access concerns raised by residents and the council, and presenting those revisions at the continued hearing.