Zoning referendum tool remains in the kit of Springfieldians

In the last Missouri legislative session, a piece of legislation focused specifically on Springfield and its residents’ access to a seldom-used tool: the zoning referendum.

Rep. Jeff Knight, R-Lebanon, proposed House Bill 2847 in January with the aim of eliminating the use of the zoning referendum, meaning the process by which a majority of the city’s voters decides whether to keep or overturn a zoning decision by Springfield City Council.

Knight told Springfield Business Journal in a January interview that he had sponsored the legislation at the request of business and development professionals in Springfield. Matt Morrow, president and CEO of the Springfield Area Chamber of Commerce, told council in a Feb. 2 meeting that his organization was in favor of the bill.

But HB 2847 died, not with the bang of a spirited debate and floor vote, but with the whimper of the legislative session expiring. The bill received a first and second reading and was referred to the Emerging Issues Committee on May 15.

Knight always said one of his goals with the bill was to begin an important conversation about the use of the referendum tool in zoning disputes. In a February interview, Knight said as much in an interview with SBJ.

“You have to do something to get the conversation going,” he said. “We’ve done that.”

Reached via text on June 18, Knight expressed his contentment with accomplishing that much. “It didn’t pass for a reason,” he said. “I let it die when there was some discussion between the city and interested parties.”

Knight said he believes it should be more difficult to overturn zoning decisions than the referendum process outlined in Springfield city code, but he noted he is term limited and will leave office in January 2027.

“I am termed out, so there won’t be anything else from me,” he texted.

He added that the issue is red hot for the Springfield legislative delegation, and by filing the legislation, he allowed the issue to be vetted while keeping the pressure off of them.

“I didn’t want to see Springfield representatives hurt in future elections,” he said.

Knight’s legislation applied only to home-rule cities in counties with populations between 260,000 and 300,000 – a description that matches only Springfield, outside of District 142, which Knight represents.

In his February remarks to council, Morrow brought up the importance of predictability for developers seeking to build in Springfield.

“People have to choose to put their capital at risk here instead of somewhere else, and that choice depends heavily on certainty,” he said, adding that Springfield is the exception, rather than the rule, in allowing the referendum

process in zoning cases.The tactic was employed with success by opponents to a zoning issue in Galloway Village in 2022 when they successfully overturned the rezoning of 4.2 acres being developed by Elevation Enterprises LLC.

A petition certified this month seeks to overturn a rezoning for a 7.6-acre site to develop an apartment building called The Reserve on Medical Mile. Developer BiBi Oaks LLC has since scrapped those plans in favor of a new development, 33 Maryland, that fits within an existing planned development designation on the same site, but at publication time for this article, council still had to address whether to repeal their May rezoning ordinance or allow the election to move forward. The topic has been assigned to a special council meeting June 28.