Cary board approves 60-day extension for Maplewood School redevelopment as residents renew New Haven road objections

The Village of Cary board on Nov. 4 approved a resolution granting a 60-day extension to the preliminary development agreement with Courtigan Clark and Associates and JM Developers LLC for the site commonly referred to as the Maplewood School property, allowing staff and the village's TIF consultant additional time to review financial components and finalize terms.

Director Brian Simmons told the board staff and the developer requested the extension because the prior 90-day extension was expiring and additional time was needed to complete due diligence and negotiations; staff anticipates returning a final redevelopment agreement to the board in December. "The 60 day continuance . . . should be enough time for us to finalize that agreement and bring something back before the board for consideration," Simmons said.

The motion passed on a roll call vote of the trustees present. Priscina, McCallpine, Collier, Dudek and Walrath voted yes; Trustee Stefani had not joined the meeting and was recorded as absent.

Residents used the open-forum period to press the board on related topics: several speakers said they oppose connecting New Haven Drive to Route 31 as part of the development and raised concerns about notice, traffic studies, stormwater and use of TIF funds. Tim Collins, a Montclair resident, said, "It's clearly this community is not is against opening up New Haven," and urged the board to "pay attention to the community." Tom Gillis, a New Haven Drive resident, criticized the proposed traffic plan as insufficient and said he felt local leadership had repeated past mistakes.

Chris Rickey told the board neighborhoods had previously packed meetings about the Maplewood property and accused officials of deciding in advance to build four- and five-story apartment buildings. He also raised stormwater concerns, saying runoff would be routed toward nearby streams and asked whether the village's TIF plan was intended to create new buildable lots by displacing existing homes. "Did you make that TIF so when you flood those houses out, all of a sudden you got new room for building?" Rickey asked.

Other residents raised process and legal concerns. Karen Hedberg outlined a timeline of public-notice events and said New Haven was not clearly disclosed in early newsletters, that attendance at a neighborhood open house was low, and that a video of a Zoning and Planning Authority meeting had been edited to remove an exchange she described as an on-record threat; she asked whether that removal violated the Open Meetings Act. Hedberg urged reopening public comment after the application changed between hearings so more residents could respond.

The board did not take additional action on the New Haven connection at the Nov. 4 meeting; the extension motion applies only to the developer's preliminary development agreement to allow staff and consultants to complete review. Director Simmons and staff indicated they are negotiating terms with the developer and continuing financial review with a TIF consultant before returning to the board.

Background: Staff said the village previously granted a 90-day extension and that the requested 60-day extension would allow time for construction-cost finalization and TIF-financial review. A representative of the development team attended the meeting and was available to answer questions, but no substantive amendment to the agreement was made on Nov. 4.