Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Cary board approves rezoning and PUD for 280‑unit Cary Station on former Maplewood School site
Summary
After extensive public comment and technical questioning, the Village Board approved an ordinance rezoning the former Maplewood School parcel and adopting the Cary Station planned development (280 units) with a series of departures and conditions set by staff and the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Village of Cary Board voted to approve an ordinance granting a zoning map amendment and planned development for the Cary Station project, a 280‑unit mixed housing development on the former Maplewood School site.
Director Simmons told the board the village acquired the vacant school property from the district and that the village’s comprehensive plan designates the site for multi‑family housing. The petition requested rezoning from R2 (single‑family) to PO (park/open space) and B1 (central business) and approval of a planned unit development (PUD) that mixes detached single‑family homes, duplexes, townhomes and apartment buildings.
Developer JM Development’s presentation described a three‑building apartment complex with a mix of studios, one‑, two‑ and three‑bedroom units, townhomes and 12 single‑family owner‑occupied homes, as well as green space and park amenities to be built to Park District specifications. Brian Cronmiller, representing JM Development, said the team revised the design after public outreach and noted the site includes stormwater basins, a fire turnaround and pedestrian connections to downtown and the Metro station.
Residents who spoke during the public comment period objected to the proposal’s density, the inclusion of five‑story buildings and a requested parking reduction. “I feel it’s a complete abomination,” resident Kristen Nagoda said during public comment. Neighbors raised concerns about scale, parking and whether the village had adequately considered alternative plans that would preserve more parkland or single‑family use.
The developer and staff responded to technical questions from trustees about setbacks, lighting, mechanical equipment location and sprinklers. Staff said the village did not require a separate traffic study because the High Road extension design work had previously assumed redevelopment of up to 300 units; the current 280‑unit proposal is within that studied capacity. Director Simmons summarized six requested departures: a reduced Prairie Street setback (20 ft to 15 ft), reduced side‑to‑side building separations for several product types, increased height for two five‑story buildings (up to 58.6 ft with a 70‑ft tower element at a corner), a reduction in parking from a code‑based requirement of 531 spaces to 350 proposed spaces, modifications to the western landscape transition yard to account for power lines, and an increase from one to two monument signs (up to 55 sq ft each). He also noted the overall density would comply with the B1 maximum (about 17.9 units per acre).
Trustees acknowledged residents’ concerns but described compromises the developer had made, including owner‑occupied options, additional parking for single‑family lots and parkland commitments. Trustee Procino said, “this nudges many of us out of our comfort zone, but I think in the long run the project will be a big benefit to the village of Cary.” Several trustees emphasized the site has been vacant for 16 years and multiple prior proposals failed to proceed.
A motion and second were offered to adopt the ordinance as drafted and to incorporate language clarifying the board’s findings were consistent with the Zoning Board of Appeals recommendation. A roll‑call vote was recorded with trustees Procino, McAlpine, Walrath, Collier, Stefani and Dudek voting yes; the motion carried and the ordinance was approved subject to the conditions listed in the staff report and draft ordinance.
The board and staff said they will monitor implementation details, including final photometric lighting plans, detailed stormwater design and construction staging, and will coordinate roadway timing with the village’s High Road extension work. The zoning approval follows a 4–2 recommendation for approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals and will proceed under the conditions included in the draft ordinance.
The meeting adjourned at 7:37 p.m.

