Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Westfield residents oppose SugarLeaf PUD introduction over drainage, traffic and scale concerns
Summary
Residents told the city council they oppose David Weekley Homes’ SugarLeaf PUD, citing drainage, traffic, privacy and heights; the applicant introduced the PUD (Ordinance 25-80) as a for‑sale townhome and single‑family plan and the council scheduled neighborhood and APC hearings.
Richard Feldman, president of the Reserve on South homeowners association, told the Westfield City Council that the proposed SugarLeaf PUD from David Weekley Homes is “completely out of character” with nearby single‑family neighborhoods and raised specific concerns including drainage, traffic and loss of privacy. “The high density townhome development … will negatively impact property values,” Feldman said during public comment.
Arnie Macy, a neighbor who lives directly behind the proposed parcel, and Jan Macy said four‑story townhomes shown in renderings would block sunlight and dominate their backyards. Scott Burton, another Reserve on South resident, questioned market demand for the scale of product proposed and cited slow sales at nearby multiunit projects as evidence the development may not be the right fit.
City staff and the applicant said the introduction of the SugarLeaf PUD is intended to implement the Simon Moon/Newby master plan presented earlier in the meeting. Lauren Gillingham Teague of the Community Development Department summarized the proposal as approximately 10.7 acres with a southern townhome area (42 for‑sale, attached units) and a northern area of detached single‑family lots (about 25 homes). John Davosha, representing the applicant, said the townhomes are intended to be for sale (fee simple) with rental restrictions and that a detailed tree inventory and preservation plan informed the layout.
Developer consultants and staff addressed technical tradeoffs raised by residents and councilors. Planner Jeff Speck and city staff said taller, denser buildings can generate tax increment revenue that could finance underground stormwater detention — a strategy they argue would preserve more trees than building conventional surface detention on the site. Councilors pressed for drainage studies and a clearer accounting of tradeoffs; staff confirmed a neighborhood meeting is scheduled for the following evening and a plan commission public hearing is set for December 1.
What happens next: Ordinance 25‑80 was introduced (no formal vote tonight). The project will return for further review at public meetings where staff and the applicant said they expect to present engineering details, sight lines, and revisions informed by resident feedback.
