Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council rejects Latitude 38 rezoning appeal after weeks of public pushback; appeal upheld and PRD application denied
Summary
After extensive public comment and debate, the council failed to approve a rezoning/PRD that would have allowed 55 rental homes on Crestview/Etherton (Bill 29‑67) and then voted to uphold the Planning & Zoning Commission’s denial of the petition.
The proposal to rezone a 7‑acre site at Crestview Drive and Etherton Road for a planned residential development (PRD) that would have allowed up to 55 rental dwellings failed to pass the Wildwood City Council on April 14. The ordinance (Bill 29‑67) required 11 affirmative votes because of the PRD component; it did not receive the required number and therefore failed. Council then voted to uphold the Planning & Zoning Commission’s prior denial of the rezoning request.
The matter drew one of the largest public participation turnouts in recent council meetings. Dozens of residents from adjacent neighborhoods and nearby wards spoke at length in opposition, citing traffic and parking concerns, compatibility with existing single‑family neighborhoods, potential impacts on property values, and contingency plans for on‑site property management and enforcement. Several speakers noted narrow local roads (Center Avenue, Etherton Road) and questioned whether emergency access, snow plowing and trash collection could be accommodated without a full through‑street connection.
Developers and supporters testified the development would meet town center guidance, add 55 units of higher‑end rental housing, provide on‑site garages, and extend Main Street access toward Etherton; developer representatives argued the project would support downtown businesses and help realize the city’s town‑center vision. The developer’s attorney and project principals requested the council consider the proposal and cited prior project approvals and the potential for local tax and utility revenue growth.
Following the failed second‑reading vote, council member Mabry moved to uphold the Planning & Zoning Commission decision to deny the PRD; the motion was seconded and carried. Council members and residents were divided in floor comments: some urged the city to pursue higher‑density, walkable town‑center infill; many neighbors insisted the project’s scale and parking strategy were incompatible with the location. The council’s action preserves the Planning & Zoning Commission’s denial; the applicant is subject to the city’s ordinance on reapplication timing for a PRD (a 12‑month limitation applies in the code).
