Developers present preliminary plan for Wildwood portion of Westland Acres; families seek expedited review

Developers on Monday presented a preliminary concept for the Wildwood portion of the historic Westland Acres community that would cover about 63.39 acres on the Wildwood side and create 57 lots, including a 10‑lot "Legacy Village" set aside for members of the local families, petitioner Brett Lawless said.

The proposal, presented to the City of Wildwood Development and Zoning Review Committee, would pair the Wildwood portion with a Chesterfield‑side subdivision already in process; Mike Faulkner, the engineer of record for the project, said the Chesterfield parcel is about 56.32 acres with 50 lots. Faulkner said the combined proposal would result in roughly 108 lots across the two jurisdictions. "On the Wildwood side, we have 63.39 acres. And of that 63.39 acres, we'll have the 57 lots," Faulkner said.

Why it matters: the Wildwood parcel contains Union Baptist Church and a historic cemetery and sits in an area covered by the city's "fifth land use category" for historic properties. That designation, plus earlier ordinances that placed 19 properties on Wildwood's historic register, affects allowable densities and requires a new overlay district for the petition to move forward in Wildwood, planning staff said. Committee members and the families emphasized urgency for older residents to see projects completed in their lifetimes.

The plan and key details - Lot counts and area: Faulkner described the Wildwood side as 63.39 acres with 57 lots; the Chesterfield side was described as about 56.32 acres with 50 lots. Petitioners and staff said most individual lots are proposed at roughly one half acre and 110 feet wide. A small block of 10 "Legacy" lots in the southwest corner would be narrower (about 70 feet wide by 150 feet deep, roughly 10,500 square feet), with one legacy lot for longtime resident Doris Frazier made larger.

- Church and cemetery: The Wildwood submittal includes Union Baptist Church and the adjacent historic cemetery. The developer said the subdivision would assume primary responsibility for future cemetery maintenance and the plan contemplates modest improvements to the church facade; the church property would remain distinct from new home sites.

- Zoning and historic rules: Planning staff reminded the committee that the area was redesignated in the mid‑2000s under the city's historic land use category (the "fifth" category in the master plan) following ordinances that placed multiple properties on the city's historic register. The underlying R‑1 (one‑acre residential) zoning remains, and staff said the petitioner will need a new overlay district and formal submissions to proceed through the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council.

Safety, infrastructure and permitting questions Committee members pressed petitioners on emergency access, road capacity and utilities. Several participants noted the subdivision as proposed would be served primarily by Church Road; Faulkner and the petitioner said most of Church Road is off‑site and not within the parcels being subdivided, and that upgrades or specifications for width, pavement structure and load capacity may be needed as the project advances.

The petitioner and Faulkner said the developer sought and received a variance from Monarch Fire District to allow a single entrance onto Church Road with conditions intended to address fire access risks. The petitioner said the variance required, among other things, wider side setbacks between dwellings so there would be roughly 30 feet between structures; Faulkner said hydrants and street‑width standards would be part of the design. The petitioner said the fire district did not charge a monetary fee for the variance but that obtaining it required time and legal expense.

Planning staff also noted that sewer easements and other utilities are limited in the existing community; petitioners acknowledged longstanding infrastructure shortfalls that predate Wildwood's incorporation and said the subdivision will need to resolve those issues as part of formal engineering review.

Community and next steps Family representatives urged expedited local review so older residents could see homes built in their lifetimes. "This community has waited long enough. We have toyed with this long enough, and it's time for healing," Andrea Huseman, a family representative, told the committee.

Committee members and staff emphasized that Monday's session was an informal concept presentation and provided only high‑level feedback; no formal actions were taken and public comment was not solicited at this meeting. Staff and petitioners said if the petitioner formally files for subdivision and overlay changes the project will return for review by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council, at which point public hearings and formal notice will be provided.

No motions or votes were recorded on Monday; the committee adjourned after the presentation.