Court filing challenges Auburn Meadows rezoning

Property owners are challenging a June 1 rezoning decision by the Greene County Commission for a portion of the Auburn Meadows development being built by Willard80 LLC.

Petitioners Larry and Jaquelyn Gray, who live near a 14-acre residential development outside of Willard, have filed a lawsuit asking the Greene County Circuit Court to reverse the rezoning.

The Grays maintain in their petition that the commission’s approval of urban residential, or UR-1, zoning for the property was contrary to the county’s comprehensive plan and the recommendation of the Greene County Planning Board to deny the rezoning request. They also say that the action and the procedures used by the commission violate state statute. The property was formerly zoned as a suburban family residence district, or R-1.

The R-1 designation required a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet, but the new UR-1 zoning designation allows minimum lot sizes of 6,000 square feet, according to past Springfield Business Journal reporting.

The Grays’ petition says they own and reside on 6.6 acres of property across the street from the development area, and their property includes the drainage ditch that receives stormwater from the area in dispute.

The property is located at the northeast corner of the intersection of State Highways AB and EE in unincorporated Greene County, bordering Willard.

The petition states that developer and Springfield City Council member Derek Lee submitted an application on behalf of Willard80 LLC to the Greene County Planning and Zoning office to rezone 93-plus acres to UR-1 for a development called Auburn Meadows. The sketch plate depicted a development of up to 290 lots, if served by current Willard sewer capacity, and up to 600 lots if Willard’s sewer capacity were to be expanded, the petition states.

After the Greene County Planning Board recommended denial of the rezoning on April 21, the petition says the applicant reduced the rezoning area from roughly 93 acres to 14 acres. It adds that the applicant did not withdraw the remaining 79 acres from future rezoning consideration and did not submit a master plan governing development of the property whole.

The Greene County Commission considered the revised rezoning request on May 4, then remanded the case back to the planning board for further consideration of the amended request, the petition outlines. At a May 19 hearing, the planning board again recommended denial.

At a June 1 meeting, the Greene County Commission broke ranks with the planning board and approved the 14-acre rezoning to UR-1, according to past SBJ reporting.

State law allows zoning decisions by a county commission to be reviewed by the circuit court for possible reversal, the petition states.

Reversal grounds
The petition seeks a reversal based on five grounds.

• Point 1: Plaintiffs argue that the commission’s decision conflicts with the county’s comprehensive plan. The complaint describes the plan as the official master plan for development in the county, and it states that all improvements made in unincorporated Greene County must conform to the plan.

“A rezoning that is inconsistent with the county’s comprehensive plan exceeds the commission’s statutory authority and must be set aside,” the petition states.

The comprehensive plan sets aside the subject property and its surrounding area for rural residential uses, the petition states.

“Urban residence district zoning is not a difference of degree: It is directly contrary to the rural character of the area as set by the comprehensive plan,” the petition states.

• Point 2: Plaintiffs argue the commission illegally acted without planning board approval.

The petition states that in noncharter first-class counties, planning board approval is a statutory requirement for private improvements. However, the section of Missouri law cited in the petition points out that the planning board’s disapproval may be overruled by the commission.

The petition states the commission violated Missouri law by approving the rezoning without written approval and recommendations of the planning board, a statutory requirement.

• Point 3: Plaintiffs argue the commission improperly received additional evidence.

The petition states the commission’s sale responsibility under Missouri law is to review the recommendation and report of the planning board, and its scope is limited to the board’s report unless additional evidence could not reasonably have been produced or was improperly excluded at the hearing.

“At the invitation of the presiding commissioner, dozens of witnesses testified including the applicant’s representative, county staff and representatives of the city of Willard,” the petition states. “The commission made no finding – or even a pretense of a finding – that those witnesses were unavailable at the planning board hearing or were improperly excluded therefrom.”

The petition states that the purpose of the testimony was to justify the commission’s approval of the zoning case.

“Each witness was questioned at length by the commission … with leading questions designed to adduce testimony favorable to the applicant,” the petition says.

It adds that commission witnesses did not have time limits, while opponents were limited to three minutes each.

The petition calls the commission’s approval “irregular and unfair” and states it deprived the petitioners of their right to due process, making their action void.

• Point 4: Plaintiffs argue the commission’s decision is unsupported by competent and substantial evidence and is arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable.

This ground for seeking reversal states that the commission’s decision was contrary to the existing character of development in the area – mostly rural and low-density suburban with a small commercial node and a single office, with no UR-1 zoning in the vicinity of the subject property, or anywhere that is not inside or adjacent to the urban core of the city of Springfield.

The petition also states the property is suitable for development under its existing zoning designation and calls the decision an example of illegal spot-zoning.

• Point 5: Plaintiffs argue that a stay of the commission’s decision is warranted.

The petition states, “Such a stay is just and appropriate to prevent irreparable harm to petitioners and their neighbors.” It adds that it will avoid likely inconsistent approvals based on the rezoning by the county and the city of Willard.

In addition to a reversal of the commission’s judgment and a return to R-1 zoning for the 14-acre development area, the petitioners ask for any other relief the court deems appropriate.

The attorney for the petitioners is Cole D. Bradbury of Jefferson City-based Ellinger Bell LLC.

Auburn Meadows
The first phase of the Auburn Meadows development is being developed now under existing R-1 zoning, according to past SBJ reporting.

Lee, an engineer, stated during the June 1 hearing that he would like to build lots in the 9,000-square-foot range, with a few in the 8,000-square-foot range, requiring a rezoning to UR-1 from R-1. He said he does not envision property at the lower end of the allowable range, and the difference would be incorporated in back yards, not visible from the front.

He added that the subdivision is “just a subdivision,” with single-family homes, driveways and lawns, and it would look similar to existing lots, according to past SBJ reporting.

Prior to the unanimous 3-0 vote of support for the rezoning, Presiding Commissioner Bob Dixon said the commission must make its decisions based on Missouri law and with consistency to other decisions it has made within the county.

“We want to make sure that we follow the law,” Dixon said at the time, according to past SBJ reporting.

Reached today via phone, Lee said he was not yet prepared to comment on the court filing, as he was learning about it for the first time.

Dixon was reached by text, but he was busy and unable to respond by the time of publication.

SBJ additionally reached out to Bradbury for comment.