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.

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 July 1 by phone, Lee said he was still reading through the court filing and did not have a prepared comment.

Dixon told SBJ that it is county policy not to comment on open cases involving the county and taxpayers.

SBJ additionally reached out to Bradbury for comment, but a response was not provided by publication time.