Homeowners sue city over East Division development

The city of Springfield is being sued by the Cooper Estates Property Owners Association, which is challenging a development planned on 48 acres of property at the city’s eastern limit.

Springfield City Council last year approved a 510-unit planned development at 3830 E. Division St. by East Division Development LLC with funding by the California-based private equity firm Canyon View Capital Inc., according to past Springfield Business Journal reporting.

Residents of Cooper Estates, a neighborhood adjoining the approved development, filed a petition April 13. In it, they maintain that the city’s approval does not conform to the city’s Forward SGF comprehensive plan, as they say is required under state law.

The plaintiffs are seeking an injunction halting the development and declaratory judgments stating that council’s ordinance allowing the development violates state law and the city’s land development code.

The petition states that Forward SGF designates the development site as a residential neighborhood traditional place type, defined in a quoted section of the plan as “post-war residential neighborhoods that contain predominantly single-family detached dwellings with uniform setbacks, building designs and parcel sizes.”

The city’s comprehensive plan does not permit large multistory apartment buildings in the residential traditional place type, the petition states. It argues that Forward SGF would allow limited, “low-intensity” multifamily uses in such a place type, for example, structures like duplexes, triplexes and similar structures.

Past SBJ reporting shows a proposed layout, prepared by architectural firm H Design Group LLC, that includes single-family houses and villas along the east and south perimeters of the property with townhomes and duplexes inside a line of single-family houses and an interior that includes 10 three-story apartment buildings surrounded by amenities, including walking trails.

Cora Scott, city director of public information and civic engagement, told SBJ on April 15, “We became aware of this lawsuit through media accounts. Since it is now pending litigation, we choose not to comment at this time.”

Opposition to development
At the public hearing for the development, attorney Bryan Fisher of Neale & Newman LLC said he represented the approximately 400 residents of Cooper Estates.

“The issue here is that the planned development simply does not comply with the Forward SGF program that this city spent four years developing and adopting as its comprehensive plan,” Fisher told council.

The petition states that the proposed development has a density of 15.5 dwelling units per acre, which is more than five times the density of Cooper Estates. Additionally, the apartment buildings included in the plan are greater in height, mass and density than any residential structure in Cooper Estates or other adjacent neighborhoods.

Cooper Estates residents seek to protect their interests, including the preservation of property values and neighborhood character, according to the court filing.

The property in question was annexed into the city in 2025 and zoned for low-density residential development, the petition states.

The document also notes that the city passed its Forward SGF comprehensive plan in November 2022 following extensive public input, and its purpose is to guide land use and zoning decisions in the city. The petition states that the document constitutes the city’s official policy statement on future development.

“Plaintiff’s members purchased and continue to own their homes in reliance on the city’s zoning regulations and long-range planning policies,” the filing states. “Missouri law also mandates that zoning decisions ‘shall be made in accordance with a comprehensive plan.’”

The Cooper Estates residents’ assertion that Forward SGF does not permit large, multistory apartment buildings in residential neighborhoods with a traditional place type forms the basis of the suit.

It’s an argument supported in council’s public hearing by Ben Shantz, a partner at Spencer Fane LLP, who urged council not to override the work that he and other members of the community contributed to form the comprehensive plan. That plan envisioned land east of U.S. Highway 65, including the development area, as predominantly single-family housing.

“There’s been a little bit of hay-talking about, well, ‘predominantly’ gives us some wiggle-room. We cannot allow the exception to swallow the rule here,” Shantz said at the time.

Another attorney, Megan Creson of Lowther Johnson Attorneys at Law LLC, spoke in favor of the development at council’s public hearing, according to past reporting.

Creson, then president-elect of the Springfield Apartment and Housing Association, said the development would deliver workforce housing.

“This project is a good fit, and it will provide much-needed housing and good-quality housing to our community,” she said.

Rezoning criteria
Offering another set of arguments, plaintiffs also assert in the petition that the city’s land development code requires eight specific factors to be considered when evaluating rezoning applications. They are consistency with the comprehensive plan, changed or changing conditions, compatibility with surrounding uses, adequacy of utilities and infrastructure, traffic impacts, correction of prior zoning error, economic viability and public input.

The petition states that the city did not adequately evaluate or apply these factors. It adds that residents appeared before the Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council and submitted written comments in opposition to the development, but the city adopted an ordinance allowing the planned development on Nov. 17, 2025. It did so, the complaint states, “despite this substantial public opposition and the documented deficiencies in the developer’s supporting materials.”

The suit seeks a declaratory judgment stating the council ordinance to approve the development violates state law because it is not made in accordance with the city’s comprehensive plan and is thus unlawful, invalid and without force or effect.

It also seeks a declaratory judgment stating that the proposed development violates the city’s land development code.

A third count of the petition seeks injunctive relief to prevent the city from taking action to implement its ordinance approving the development.