The new subdivision plan, dubbed Chimney Rock, is controversial among nearby neighbors in southeast Springfield.
The plans would open up Arcadia Avenue, which currently terminates with a cul-de-sac in the existing Chimney Hills subdivision, and connect it to the future Chimney Rock subdivision.
Residents believe eliminating the cul-de-sac would lead to unacceptable car traffic from the newly-connected roads.
Meanwhile, the Chimney Rock plan first presented to City Council in January called for some 40 houses to be packed onto less than 9 acres, a dense development strategy that prompted objections from some southside residents.
Online court records show the new lawsuit was filed May 2 by Dan Clark, who says in the lawsuit that he’s a resident of Arcadia Avenue for 25 years.
The lawsuit seeks a "writ of mandamus" — a type of court order mandating that a government official properly fulfill their official duties — or a declaratory judgment.
Clark and his lawyers are asking Missouri courts to compel Springfield City Clerk Anita Cotter to certify approval of a referendum petition submitted by residents nearly two months ago. Their petition, if it were successful, would give citywide voters the option to overturn City Council's February 10 vote to approve the Chimney Rock subdivision layout.
According to his lawsuit, Clark claims his property rights were violated because back in 2018, the city approved a conditional overlay district that stipulated “no access shall be allowed from the subject property” — in other words, the land east of Clark's neighborhood, where developers wish to build the new Chimney Rock — to Arcadia Avenue, Mimosa Street, or “any residentially zoned property.”
In other words, residents believed that the 2018 conditional overlay shielded them from traffic associated with any new development on properties just east of Chimney Hills.
But on February 10, Springfield City Council voted 8-1 to approve the nearby Chimney Rock layout, as KSMU reported at the time.
Prior to Council’s vote in February, City Attorney Jordan Paul advised the city’s highest elected officials at a January public hearing that their duty regarding Chimney Rock’s preliminary plat ordinance was limited to being “administrative” or “ministerial,” as opposed to “legislative.”
In other words, the attorney for the city rendered a professional opinion that Council was allowed to administer existing rules, but not create new ones for the Chimney Rock/Chimney Hills subdivisions.
Thus, if the developer’s subdivision plan for the Chimney Rock proposal met the requirements of state and local law, Council had to approve it, the city attorney said at the time — regardless of whether Council members viewed the subdivision plat as a good or bad idea.
Galloway-area residents respond to Council Chimney Rock vote
In mid-March, residents submitted some 2,000 signatures to Springfield City Clerk Anita Cotter on a referendum petition seeking to overturn Council’s ordinance approving the Chimney Rock plan.
Springfield city charter provides that the public can call a referendum to overturn a Springfield ordinance, if enough valid signatures are submitted within 30 days of passage by Council vote.
The charter — a basic law for the City of Springfield much like the U.S. Constitution underlying all U.S. law — requires signatures from at least 10% of the total number of voters in the most recent general municipal election, for a referendum petition to be forwarded to city voters for their choice at the ballot box.
On March 11, Clerk Cotter accepted the signatures brought to her office by southeast Springfield neighborhood leaders, but the new lawsuit alleges Cotter didn’t go on to certify the petition before the next regularly-scheduled Council meeting, and that such action was required by city charter.
Rather, on March 19, the lawsuit says Cotter issued a letter claiming the petition was "void" due to the "administrative" nature of the ordinance approving Chimney Rock. That means the city contended that Council's vote wasn't subject to any referendum by the people, as with other city ordinances.
As in January, the city’s position asserted Council members and other city officials properly performed their “ministerial” duties.
Clark's new lawsuit argues "the City Charter confers no authority to the City Clerk to unilaterally adjudicate" whether a given act by City Council would be “administrative” or “legislative,” or whether Council acts can be “subject to referendum."
City responds to new 'writ of mandamus' lawsuit
Cora Scott, chief spokesperson for the City of Springfield, told Ozarks Public Radio early Wednesday that the city doesn’t comment on any pending litigation such as the new "writ of mandamus" lawsuit by Clark. And, she said, as of around 7 a.m. Wednesday the city hadn’t yet been served with the latest lawsuit paperwork.
Early Wednesday morning, Ozarks Public Radio reached out to attorneys for Chimney Hills resident Dan Clark for comment — but was not immediately successful in reaching them by phone or email.
The new lawsuit is part of an ongoing series of tensions between neighborhood residents, land developers and city officials in recent Springfield history. The petition signatures dropped off at the city clerk's office in mid-March marked the second time since 2020 that residents in southeast Springfield's Galloway area delivered a petition to the city. That earlier matter also ended up in court.
In a 2022 citywide referendum, roughly 70% of Springfield voters rejected a separate plan to develop a mixed-use complex across from Sequiota Park, located roughly a mile from the Arcadia-Mimosa area that's currently making headlines.
At that time, neighborhood residents opposed additional dense development near their homes in the Galloway Village area.
