Opposition to the 600 Lot AB/EE rezoning - Pt. 1

Dude! Why ya gotta block my Sunshine?

It’s been nearly a year and a half since I last posted here, but over the next few days I thought I’d share several reports that were written by the opposition to Auburn Meadows—the high-density housing development at AB/EE that’s been in the news recently.

I’ll let the reports speak for themselves.

Also, be sure to read this Facebook comment from Greene County Commissioner Bob Dixon about the rezoning proposal by clicking here.

A few observations after reading the Formal Opposition Report:

First, how in the world did the City of Willard initially arrive at requiring approximately $172,000.00 for the opposition’s Sunshine request(s)?

Second, in my opinion there is a pretty good argument to be made that being an active developer while also being a Springfield city councilman is not something you should try to do at the same time.

Third, oftentimes there is significant overlap between the interests of developers and government officials. The City of Willard has long wanted to annex the area around AB/EE, and Greene County seems to be increasingly minimizing its responsibility over unincorporated areas of the county. Could the Auburn Meadows be a backdoor for Willard to annex The Meadows, Willard Meadows, etc. by surrounding those areas with annexed development and turning them into an “unincorporated island,” thereby providing the City with greater legal standing for an involuntary annexation effort?

The Greene County Commission will hold a meeting and public hearing this Monday, June 1st, 9:30 AM at the Historic Courthouse, 940 N Boonville in Springfield.

---

FORMAL OPPOSITION REPORT

Greene County Planning Board Case #2410

Request to Rezone from R-1 Suburban Residence District

to UR-1 Urban Residence District

Amended to 14.31 Acres of a 93-Acre Parcel

Northeast Corner of Highway AB and Highway EE

Unincorporated Greene County, Missouri

Applicant: Willard80, LLC / Lee Engineering & Associates

Submitted to: Greene County Planning Board

Date: May 17, 2026

I. Introduction

This report is submitted in formal opposition to Greene County Planning Board Case #2410, in which Willard80, LLC, registered to Springfield City Council Member Derek Lee, and Lee Engineering & Associates have requested the rezoning of land from R-1 Suburban Residence District to UR-1 Urban Residence District at the northeast corner of Highway AB and Highway EE in unincorporated Greene County, Missouri. The original application sought to rezone approximately 93 acres. That request was denied by the Planning Board on April 21, 2026, on a 6-1 vote after 20 residents spoke in opposition. The Greene County Commission remanded the case back to the Planning Board on May 4, 2026, at the developer’s request. The zoning request to high-density residential has now been amended to 14.31 acres of the 93-acre parcel.

This report demonstrates that the rezoning should be denied based on environmental hazards that have been concealed, infrastructure that does not exist, conflicts of interest involving the developer’s position on the Springfield City Council, inconsistent and contradictory information provided to the public and to this Board, a potential violation of the Missouri Sunshine Law, and a complete absence of community engagement.

II. This Development Should Not Be Considered Piecemeal

The original application sought to rezone all 93 acres for a subdivision of up to 290 lots (with capacity for over 600 if sewer upgrades were completed). That was denied. The developer has now returned asking for 14.31 acres and 34 lots. But the site plan submitted with the original application showed that these 34 lots were Phase 2 of the larger Auburn Meadows subdivision. This is not a new, smaller project. It is the same project being submitted one piece at a time.

The remaining 79 acres have not been withdrawn from consideration. No binding commitment limits future phases. The developer has publicly stated that if sewer service is not extended, he intends to divide the remainder into three-acre lots. The public has been given no disclosure of what is planned for the remaining acreage: whether apartments, storage units, additional subdivisions, or other uses are contemplated with the City of Willard.

This is not the first rezoning attempt on this property. In November 2021, under Case PB 2189, a previous owner petitioned to rezone 17.7 acres to a Plot Assignment District (PAD) with the intention of building 78,000 square feet of office and storage space. The Greene County Planning Board voted 8-0 to recommend approval with seven staff-recommended conditions. The Greene County Commission then voted 3-0 to remand the case back to the Planning Board. The case was withdrawn at the applicant’s request on December 10, 2021. This property has a pattern of rezoning attempts that test what the community will accept.

A development of this scale should be evaluated as a Master Planned Community under Planned Development zoning, not processed 14 acres at a time through a series of individual rezoning bites. A master plan for the entire 93-acre parcel should be required before any portion is rezoned.

III. This Rezoning Should Not Be Allowed for Multiple Independent Reasons

Each of the following arguments is independently sufficient to deny this application.

A. Willard’s Annexation Ordinance

The City of Willard’s own Municipal Code requires an irrevocable consent to annex as a condition of connecting to city water or sewer from outside city limits. Section 705.090 of the Willard Code states that any person outside the city limits who requests permission to connect to the Waterworks System must file an application for a special connection permit and “execute and file with the Recorder of Deeds an irrevocable consent to annex into the City limits pertaining to their property.” On the sewer side, Section 710.545 prohibits any person from connecting to the city’s POTW (publicly owned treatment works) from outside a sanitary sewer district without first obtaining a special connection permit, and Section 710.525 authorizes the Director to require, as a condition of that permit, that the property owner “execute an irrevocable consent and petition to annex the connecting property in the City limits” and grant a sewer easement. If Willard has stated it cannot annex this property at this time, then the UR-1 rezoning is pointless. UR-1 density requires public sewer. If sewer cannot be extended to unannexed property without an irrevocable consent to annex, the density the rezoning would allow cannot be achieved.

The public record contains three contradictory statements on annexation. On March 12, 2026, Derek Lee wrote to Greene County that “Willard’s comprehensive plan considers this property as a mixed-use district per their future use map which is intended to promote higher densities.” Five days later, on March 17, 2026, Willard Director of Planning and Development Mike Ruesch emailed Greene County that “We are also working on annexation of the property with the developer when possible.” Then, in April 17, 2026, the City of Willard posted on its official Facebook page (“City of Willard, MO Information”) and its website: “This property is not within the City of Willard, and the City is not in a position to annex it at this time.” These three statements cannot all be true. If Willard is not in a position to annex, then Ruesch’s email misrepresented the City’s intentions to Greene County. If Willard was working on annexation with the developer, then the public Facebook post was misleading. Either way, the Board and the public have been given contradictory information by the developer and the City about a foundational question: whether Willard can provide the sewer service that the proposed density requires.

B. Willard Does Not Have a UR-1 Zoning Code

The City of Willard’s zoning districts are R-1 through R-5 plus MU (Mixed Use). Willard does not have a classification equivalent to Greene County’s UR-1 Urban Residence District. Per Willard Code Section 400.390, annexed territory retains its county zoning classification until reclassified by the city. Approving a UR-1 rezoning would impose a zoning classification on property that the governing city’s own code does not recognize.

C. Lee’s “Mixed Use” Is Not Willard’s Mixed Use

In a March 12, 2026 letter, the developer wrote that “Willard’s comprehensive plan considers this property as a mixed-use district” and that the mixed-use district “is intended to promote higher densities than Greene County’s Urban Residential District.” This claim does not hold up when compared to what Willard’s MU zoning code actually requires.

Willard’s MU code calls for “creative and imaginative design,” “preservation of community-valued view corridors, open spaces and trails,” and “minimizing the visual impact.” What the developer actually proposed is rows of small homes on small lots with no commercial component, no trail system, no open space preservation, and no integration of uses. The developer’s background is in civil engineering and subdivision work, not integrated mixed-use community development. What has been proposed is a conventional subdivision, not a mixed-use development.

D. The Applicant Has Misrepresented Existing Lot Sizes

The applicant has cited lot sizes of approximately 6,000 square feet in Villa Park Meadows to justify his proposed lot sizes. This is misleading. The recorded final plats for the surrounding subdivisions show the following minimum lot sizes: Villa Park Meadows (recorded 1989), smallest lot 8,030.57 square feet; Villa Park Heights (recorded 1974), smallest lot 10,959 square feet; Prairie View Addition (recorded 1975), smallest lot 13,300 square feet.

The lots the applicant referenced in Villa Park Meadows are approximately 6 lots out of 45 that have utility easements running behind them, which reduces the usable area of those specific lots. But the recorded plat shows even those lots are closer to 8,000 square feet than 6,000. The remaining lots in Villa Park Meadows and all of the lots in the adjacent Villa Park Heights and Prairie View Addition are 10,000 square feet or larger. Using the most constrained lots in one subdivision as the standard for an entire new development misrepresents the character of the surrounding community to this Board.

IV. Sinkhole Deletion and Environmental Hazards

On July 30, 2025, Derek Lee emailed Kelly Short, Greene County Stormwater Engineer and Floodplain Administrator, directly requesting the removal of sinkholes from the county map. Lee wrote: “I am working with the land just south of the Meadows. It contains three sinkholes. While there are a number of sinkholes just south of these depressions, the historical photos clearly show man-made farm ponds in the location of each feature. Can you look at these and see if you can remove any of them from the County sinkhole maps.”

On August 1, 2025, Matt Forir of Greene County responded: “I think this is what you are after. The sinkholes are all the way on the south portion of the property and not really sinkholes.” He then stated: “I believe we can delete these.”

The PB 2410 staff analysis subsequently listed sinkholes as “No” because they had been deleted at the developer’s request, with no independent geological verification.

Meanwhile, the State of Missouri has active dye trace records from sinkholes in this same area. Those dye traces show a contamination pathway: sinkholes on this property connect through groundwater to Clear Creek, which is part of the Little Sac River watershed. The Little Sac River flows into Stockton Lake. Stockton Lake is a public drinking water source for the City of Springfield. Springfield draws water from Stockton Lake through a 30.1-mile, 36-inch pipeline to Fellows Lake, which then gets pumped to the Blackman Treatment Plant. The Missouri Department of Natural Resources maintains a publicly accessible dye trace database at https://gis-modnr.opendata.arcgis.com/maps/modnr::dye-trace-1/explore where these records can be reviewed by any member of the Board or the public.

The Missouri DNR’s Upper Little Sac River Watershed Management Plan specifically describes this area as “well-known for its karst geology, characterized by many sinkholes, caves and bedrock fractures connecting surface water and groundwater.” The three lakes (Stockton, Fellows, and McDaniel) are public drinking water sources for Springfield and Greene County residents.

A Springfield City Council member asked Greene County to erase sinkholes from the map on property that sits upstream of Springfield’s own drinking water supply. Sewer lines built over active karst features risk groundwater contamination that could follow this exact path to a public water supply.

The method used to assess these features was the general Lidar aerial mapping process used for Greene County. No onsite assessment was performed. Lidar mapping is useful for identifying surface topography from the air, but it has significant limitations in karst terrain. It cannot determine whether a surface depression is a true sinkhole or a man-made feature such as a farm pond. It cannot detect subsurface karst activity, groundwater connectivity, or active drainage pathways. It cannot identify whether a depression is receiving surface water runoff and channeling it into the subsurface through fractures or solution channels in the underlying bedrock.

The only way to confirm that these features are not sinkholes is through an onsite geological assessment and dye trace testing. An onsite assessment would include physical inspection of the depressions, evaluation of the surrounding geology, soil borings or geophysical surveys to detect subsurface voids or fracture zones, and review of the bedrock characteristics. Dye trace testing would determine whether water entering these features connects to groundwater and, if so, where that groundwater resurfaces. Neither an onsite geological assessment nor dye trace testing was conducted before these features were removed from the county map. The decision was made based on aerial imagery and the developer’s assertion that the features were man-made farm ponds.

As a direct result of this deletion, the PB 2410 staff analysis for this case states at point 8: “No floodplains, sinkholes, joints, lineaments, or other environmental features are present at this site.” This statement was relied upon by county staff in recommending approval of the rezoning. It is based on records that were altered at the developer’s request without the level of due diligence that karst geology requires.

The PB 2410 staff analysis at point 9 states: “The Greene County Land Use Plan has identified this area as suitable for rural residential uses.” The county’s own land use plan designates this property for rural residential development, not urban or high-density residential. This directly contradicts the applicant’s March 12, 2026 letter claiming that Willard’s comprehensive plan considers this property as a mixed-use district intended for higher densities.

The presence of potential wetlands on the property cannot be independently verified because access to the developer’s land is not available for survey. The features are visible, but no independent assessment has been done.

V. Sewer Capacity, I&I, and the Springfield Contract

A. Allgeier Martin Sewer Data

Willard’s contracted engineer, Allgeier Martin, has provided data showing the following:

The Meadows West collection system has remaining capacity for only approximately 114 homes without upgrades. The force main has known leaks. Significant I&I (inflow and infiltration) already exists in the system. Lee’s property is capped at approximately 160 residences (47,820 gpd) even with upgrades. A higher-density buildout requires massive infrastructure investment: the lift station capacity would need to increase from 240 to 550 gpm, the force main from 6 inches to 8 inches, and the trunk sewer from 12 inches to 15 inches.

The financial condition of Willard’s sewer system underscores how fragile the existing infrastructure already is. At the December 9, 2024 meeting of the Willard Board of Aldermen, City Administrator Wesley Young warned that without rate increases, the water and sewer fund faced insolvency by mid-2026. Young stated: “I really have to express serious concerns at this point about our ability to maintain solvency” and discussed the possibility that the city might need to sell the water and sewer systems to a private company. A recording of this discussion is available on the City of Willard’s YouTube channel, beginning at approximately the 39-minute mark. On January 13, 2025, the Board approved flat rate increases of approximately $4 per 1,000 gallons for water and $10 per 1,000 gallons for sewer, applied equally to in-city and rural customers.

In January 2026, Willard began a $5.8 million project to replace the sewer line from the 94-Lift Station near Highway 160, the line that carries all of Willard’s wastewater to Springfield. Young told KOLR that the line is “quite old” and that “a couple of years back there were some significant breaks in that area.” The project is partially funded by an EPA grant and partly by a settlement from those previous line failures. The remaining $2.1 million is being financed through debt instruments supported by the 2026 rate increases. Young said the upgraded line should handle the next 20 years of growth “unless we outgrow the projections.” Adding a high-density subdivision to this system while Willard is still financing the replacement and upgrade of the main trunk line raises serious questions about capacity, cost allocation, and financial sustainability.

B. The Springfield-Willard Sewer Contract

Willard and Springfield have a Wastewater Service Contract under which Springfield accepts and treats Willard’s wastewater at its publicly owned treatment works (POTW). That contract imposes specific obligations on Willard regarding inflow and infiltration, sewer system maintenance, connection permits, and capacity limits. Springfield’s enforcement authority under this contract is not limited to surcharges or fees. The contract authorizes Springfield to declare a breach and discontinue treatment of sewage from Willard’s entire sewer collection system, to obtain injunctive relief in Greene County Circuit Court, and to act in Willard’s name if Willard fails to respond within ten days of a written request (Sections 206, 312.B, 413, 415, and 416).

The contract’s I&I provisions are detailed and mandatory. Under Section 205, Willard must “effectively police, monitor and control” its sewer collection system to preclude storm, surface, or ground water from entering the system. Willard must maintain ordinances prohibiting the connection of roof drains, porch drains, driveway drains, parking lot drains, street drains, footing drains, and surface or ground water sump pumps to the sewer system, and must require their immediate removal or disconnection upon discovery. The contract’s definitions section reinforces this by defining “Ordinances” as those which “shall be maintained and enforced at all times” by Willard while the contract is in effect (Section 102.A).

Section 206 adds a critical enforcement trigger. If I&I defects affect “the public health, safety or environmental compliance of the POTW (including the contribution of inflow or infiltration),” Willard is required to stop issuing new sanitary sewer connection permits. If Willard continues to issue permits despite such conditions, Springfield may treat that as a breach of the contract, entitling Springfield to discontinue treatment of sewage from Willard’s sewer collection system and seek judicial relief. Section 206 also provides that Willard may not extend its sewer collection system without Springfield’s written consent.

Section 211 caps the wastewater Springfield agrees to receive at an Average Annual Daily Flow of 1.32 MGD. If capacity becomes insufficient to accommodate anticipated flows from Willard and from Springfield’s own customers, Springfield will advise Willard of the estimated date when new connections to Willard’s sewer collection system will no longer be permitted to connect and discharge into Springfield’s POTW.

But Willard cannot actually fulfill these contractual obligations in the neighborhoods that generate most of the flow. The Meadows, Villa Park, and Villa Park Meadows were the original owners of the sewer and water infrastructure through The Meadows Water Company and North Suburban Public Utility Company, which transferred those assets to the City of Willard in 2008 under Missouri Public Service Commission Case WO-2007-0424. Those neighborhoods predated the Willard-Springfield agreement. Because of that, they were never required to annex into Willard. Willard has no jurisdictional authority over those neighborhoods, which means Willard cannot enforce I&I controls, cannot require disconnection of prohibited drain connections, and cannot conduct the monitoring and inspection the contract requires on the existing collection system in those areas. The only I&I regulation that applies in those neighborhoods is state-level DNR regulation.

This creates an impossible situation. Willard is contractually required to police, monitor, control, and enforce I&I compliance on a sewer system it does not have the jurisdictional authority to manage. Allgeier Martin has already documented significant I&I in this system. Under Section 206, if those conditions affect public health, safety, or environmental compliance of Springfield’s POTW, Willard is contractually required to stop issuing new connection permits. Lee’s development would add even more unannexed sewer connections to a system where Willard already cannot control I&I. Each additional connection on unannexed property increases the flow Willard cannot manage, increases the I&I risk, and increases Willard’s exposure to the most severe consequences available under the contract: discontinuation of sewer treatment for all of Willard’s customers.

VI. Conflict of Interest

Derek Lee sits on the Springfield City Council, the body that has authority under the Wastewater Service Contract to declare a breach, discontinue treatment of Willard’s sewage, and pursue injunctive relief against Willard for I&I violations.

This conflict works in both directions. If Willard cooperates with Lee’s development and provides sewer to unannexed property it cannot properly manage, I&I violations become more likely. Lee’s position on the Springfield City Council gives him influence over whether Springfield looks the other way. If Willard resists Lee’s plans, Lee sits on the council that can tighten the screws on Willard through I&I enforcement, rate adjustments, or contract interpretation.

Either way, Lee has power over Willard that no ordinary developer would have. He is adding sewer load to a system he knows has I&I problems, on property he knows Willard cannot annex, while sitting on the council of the city that enforces the very contract Willard would be violating.

Lee also serves on the Board of Directors of the Ozarks Transportation Organization (OTO), the federally designated metropolitan planning organization for the Springfield region. In December 2024, OTO opened a public comment period for Destination 2045 Amendment 8, which proposed updating the Major Thoroughfare Plan for Greene County to remove a planned future collector road (Farm Road 101 at State Highway EE) from the regional transportation plan. The stated reason was “the proposed letting of a future R-1 lot subdivision along the western boundary of the proposed roadway, which conflicts with existing utilities.” The Greene County Commission approved this request on October 7, 2024 (Planning Board Case 2335). The OTO Board of Directors approved Amendment 8 at its January 16, 2025 meeting. The official minutes record that “Derek Lee recused himself from this agenda item.” The recusal acknowledges the conflict. However, the Amendment 8 packet itself contains Lee Engineering sketch plans (Project #2242) for Willard 80, LLC showing proposed tracts and a sidewalk easement exhibit along Highway EE and Farm Road 101, as well as a minor subdivision plat for Willard 80, LLC showing lots along Farm Road 101. The “future R-1 lot subdivision” that justified removing the planned public road is Lee’s own project. Lee’s development created the conflict, Greene County filed to remove the road on that basis, and the OTO Board that Lee sits on approved the removal. The recusal from one vote does not change the fact that Lee’s project drove the amendment from start to finish.

VII. Potential Violation of the Missouri Sunshine Law

Willard Director of Planning and Development Mike Ruesch confirmed in a March 17, 2026 email to Greene County that “The city has been in contact with Mr. Lee during this process of development of Auburn Meadows Phases 1 & 2” and that “We are working with the developer in regards to services for phases 1 & 2. We are also working on annexation of the property with the developer when possible.”

The Missouri Sunshine Law, Chapter 610 RSMo, requires that meetings, records, votes, actions, and deliberations of public governmental bodies be open to the public unless otherwise provided by law. RSMo 610.021 lists the specific exceptions under which a public body may close a meeting. The two most commonly invoked exceptions are subsection (1), covering legal actions or litigation, and subsection (2), covering the leasing, purchase, or sale of real estate where public knowledge might adversely affect legal consideration.

Neither exception applies here. The City of Willard is not purchasing, selling, or leasing real estate. The City is not engaged in litigation related to this development. What has occurred is the negotiation and discussion of development agreements, sewer service commitments, and annexation conditions with a private developer. These are policy decisions about public infrastructure and land use. They are not real estate transactions by the city, and they are not legal actions.

The approval of agreements with a developer regarding sewer service extension, infrastructure commitments, and annexation terms cannot lawfully be conducted in closed session. These discussions directly affect the public interest, the capacity of public infrastructure, and the character of the surrounding community. If any such discussions or agreements between the City of Willard and Lee or Willard80, LLC were conducted outside of open public meetings, that conduct may constitute a violation of the Missouri Sunshine Law.

The public has a right to know the terms of any commitments the City of Willard has made or is considering making to this developer. Ruesch’s email confirms discussions have taken place. The substance and the terms of those discussions should be disclosed in full.

VIII. Water Advisory Board and Inconsistent Information

At the Willard Water Advisory Board meeting on April 15, 2026, Ruesch told the board the development consists of 2 phases of 39 lots each (78 total). This is different from the 34 lots Lee presented to the Greene County Planning Board. The public has been given contradictory information about the basic scope of this project.

Board member Scott Long questioned the wisdom of adding homes when the water system is “already near capacity.” The water assessment from Cochran Engineering remains incomplete. No development of any size should proceed until that assessment is available for public review.

The official minutes of the April 15 meeting state: “Ruesch stated he spoke on the phone to the resident who started a petition regarding the development.” That resident is Tamara Henk. That claim is false. Ms. Henk and Mr. Ruesch have never had a substantive conversation about this development. Ms. Henk has documented this through a series of written communications:

On April 30, 2026, Ms. Henk emailed Ruesch directly, stating: “I have not been able to speak with you during my several calls to the city planning and development department. In fact, we have never spoken.” She requested that any information he had about the proposed development be emailed to her. She received no response.

On May 11, 2026, Ms. Henk emailed both Ruesch and City Administrator Wesley Young, following up: “Contrary to the minutes of the Willard Advisory Board, we have never spoken.” She again requested the information Ruesch claimed to have shared with her. She received no response.

On May 17, 2026, Ms. Henk wrote directly to Young: “I have only spoken to Mr. Ruesch once, very briefly, and that was last week, certainly not before April 15th. When we did speak, he again did not discuss this information.” She noted that she had called the City of Willard several times attempting to reach both Ruesch and Young and was told each time that neither was available.

None of these communications received a substantive response. The documented record establishes that Ruesch’s statement to the Water Advisory Board was inaccurate, that the City was made aware it was inaccurate, and that no correction was issued.

The video recording of the April 15, 2026 Water Advisory Board meeting, where Ruesch made this claim, has not been made available. The City initially attributed this to a video failure. A subsequent Sunshine Law request for the video produced only the meeting minutes and a fee demand for the recording itself. The City of Willard has not confirmed or denied Ruesch’s statements as recorded in the minutes, despite repeated requests for clarification. The Board therefore cannot independently verify what Ruesch said, the City will not address it, and the one record that could resolve the matter is being withheld behind a fee.

IX. Transparency and Community Engagement

The developer and the City of Willard have not held open houses or community meetings to discuss the developer’s goals, the scope of the project, or its impact on existing infrastructure and neighborhoods. Over 700 residents signed a petition in opposition. Twenty people spoke against the project at the April 21 hearing. This level of community opposition demands meaningful engagement, not a remand and resubmission.

On April 23, 2026, a Sunshine Law request was submitted to the City of Willard under RSMo §610.023 et seq. The request was specific and narrowly tailored. It asked for emails and attachments from Derek Lee, Lee Engineering, DT Developer Inc, or Willard80 to the City of Willard, its employees, its mayor, or board members for the years 2025 and 2026. It also asked for all records related to three identified Greene County parcels (1403400148, 143400144, and 1403400149), including meeting minutes, emails, notes, attachments, and any other information related to those parcels for the years 2025 and 2026. It specifically noted that closed session records should be included because the withholding period had passed. The requestor asked to be notified if fees would exceed $200 and requested a fee waiver on the basis of public interest.

The City of Willard’s response, sent via email and addressed to “Ms. Henk,” called this “such a vague request” and estimated it would take approximately 1,000 hours to identify and copy applicable records, at an hourly rate of $17.25, for a total estimated cost of $172,500. The City stated this payment would need to be made in full prior to beginning the search. The response set a completion date of no later than March 31, 2027, nearly a year from the date of the request. The letter further stated that if the requestor failed to pay the estimated amount within 150 days, the request would be deemed withdrawn. The response also asked the requestor to clarify whether paper or electronic copies were being requested, citing RSMo 610.026.2, with a warning that failure to respond to this clarification within 150 days would also result in a determination that the request was withdrawn.

This response does not add up. The request identified specific senders, specific parcel numbers, specific record types, and a two-year time window. The majority of the records requested are emails that can be identified through a mail server search by sender name or domain. Meeting minutes for the identified parcels are public records that are already organized and indexed. A 1,000-hour estimate for this scope of work raises serious questions about whether the response was calculated to discourage the request rather than fulfill it. The fee calculation is also mathematically incorrect. One thousand hours at $17.25 per hour equals $17,250, not $172,500. The quoted figure is ten times the correct amount. The letter was not signed by any individual; it was signed only as “The City of Willard.” Despite City Administrator Wesley Young’s statement at the May 11, 2026 Board of Aldermen meeting that a corrected response had been sent, no corrected response has ever been received.

A second Sunshine Law request was submitted on May 7, 2026, seeking emails and attachments from Derek Lee or Lee Engineering to the Willard City Administrator, Wesley Young, and/or the Willard Planning Director, Mike Ruesch, for the years 2025 and 2026. This request covered substantially the same type of records as the first: emails from identified senders to identified city officials over the same time period.

The City’s response to this second request, signed by City Clerk Courtney Myers, estimated 40 hours of clerical time at $17.25 per hour, for a total estimated research cost of $690. The City stated the records would be ready no later than July 31, 2026. The contrast between the two responses speaks for itself. The first request, which covered largely the same type of records but also included parcel-based records and closed session materials, was quoted at 1,000 hours. Even using the correct arithmetic of $17,250 (rather than the $172,500 stated in the letter), that is still 25 times the cost quoted for the second request. The hour estimates alone, 1,000 versus 40, differ by a factor of 25 for searches of the same mail server over the same time period for the same types of senders. This disparity further supports the conclusion that the first response was designed to be prohibitive rather than responsive.

The May 11, 2026 Board of Aldermen meeting agenda made no mention of discussion related to the proposed development at AB and EE or the pending Sunshine Request. Yet City Administrator Young discussed both the development and the Sunshine Request at that meeting, beginning at approximately the 48-minute mark. His remarks included comments characterizing citizens’ exercise of their First Amendment rights, including activity on social media, as a burden rather than protected speech. A recording of this meeting is available on the City of Willard’s YouTube channel. That approach is inconsistent with the City’s stated commitment to transparency.

X. Remaining Acreage and Future Plans

The revised proposal seeks to rezone 14.31 acres of a 93-acre parcel. What is planned for the remaining acreage? Are there separate plans with the City of Willard for apartments, storage units, or other uses? The applicant has publicly stated that if sewer service is not extended, he intends to divide the property into three-acre lots. All plans for the full parcel should be disclosed now, as part of a complete review, rather than introduced piece by piece after the initial rezoning is locked in. A master plan for the entire parcel should be required before any portion is rezoned.

XI. Media Coverage

This case has received significant press coverage from multiple outlets, including the Springfield Daily Citizen, KY3, KSMU (the local NPR affiliate), KOLR/OzarksFirst, and the Springfield Business Journal. Coverage has confirmed the 700-signature opposition petition (Currently over 850), the 20 residents who testified against the project, the 6-1 denial vote, Lee’s own statement about dividing into three-acre lots if sewer is not available, and Ruesch’s email to Greene County. The level of media interest reflects the seriousness of the concerns raised in this report.

XII. Conclusion and Recommendation

For the reasons set forth in this report, the Greene County Planning Board should deny Case #2410 in its entirety. The proposed rezoning from R-1 to UR-1 is inappropriate for this location based on the following findings:

1. This development is being submitted piecemeal to avoid the scrutiny that a 93-acre, 290-lot subdivision requires. It should be managed as a Master Planned Community, not processed 14 acres at a time.

2. Under Willard Code Sections 705.090, 710.525, and 710.545, connection to city water or sewer from outside city limits requires a special connection permit and an irrevocable consent to annex filed with the Recorder of Deeds. If Willard cannot annex this property, sewer service cannot be extended and the UR-1 rezoning is moot.

3. The City of Willard does not have a zoning classification equivalent to Greene County’s UR-1. Approving this zoning would impose a classification on property that the governing city’s own code does not recognize.

4. The applicant’s concept of “mixed use” (rows of small homes on small lots, possibly rentals as mentioned by Lee) does not match Willard’s Comprehensive Plan or MU zoning code, which requires creative design, open spaces, trails, view corridor preservation, and integration of commercial and residential uses.

5. The proposed urban density does not fit the rural and suburban residential character of the surrounding community.

6. The applicant has misrepresented existing lot sizes in Villa Park Meadows to the Board, undermining his justification for the proposed lot sizes.

7. Sinkholes were deleted from the Greene County map at the developer’s request, without independent geological verification, while the State of Missouri has active dye trace records from sinkholes in the same area. Those dye traces connect to Clear Creek, which drains into the Little Sac River watershed and ultimately into Stockton Lake, a public drinking water source for Springfield.

8. The sewer system serving this area already has significant inflow and infiltration (I&I) problems, as documented by Allgeier Martin. The Meadows West collection system has remaining capacity for only approximately 114 homes without upgrades, and the force main has known leaks.

9. The Wastewater Service Contract requires Willard to police, monitor, and control I&I, maintain ordinances prohibiting specific drain connections, require immediate removal of violations, and stop issuing new sewer connection permits if I&I defects affect public health, safety, or environmental compliance (Sections 205 and 206). But Willard cannot fulfill these obligations in The Meadows, Villa Park, or Villa Park Meadows because those neighborhoods owned the sewer and water infrastructure through private utility companies until the assets were transferred to Willard in 2008 (PSC Case WO-2007-0424), were never required to annex into Willard, and are subject only to state-level DNR regulation. Adding more unannexed sewer connections through this development will worsen a problem Willard already cannot manage and increase its exposure to the most severe contractual consequence: discontinuation of sewer treatment for all of Willard’s customers.

10. The developer sits on the Springfield City Council, which has the authority under the Wastewater Service Contract to declare a breach, discontinue treatment of Willard’s sewage, and pursue injunctive relief for I&I violations. This creates a dual conflict of interest: Lee has power over Willard whether Willard cooperates or resists his development plans.

11. The Cochran Engineering water assessment remains incomplete. No development should proceed until the full assessment is available for public review.

12. The Water Advisory Board was told the development consists of 2 phases of 39 lots each (78 total), which conflicts with the 34 lots presented to the Planning Board. The public has been given inconsistent and contradictory information about the scope of this project.

13. Any agreements between the City of Willard and the developer regarding sewer service, annexation, or development conditions must be discussed and approved in open session under the Missouri Sunshine Law. Development agreements and utility service contracts do not fall within the closed-session exceptions under RSMo 610.021, and any such discussions conducted outside public view may constitute a violation of the law.

14. There has been no meaningful community engagement. The developer and the City of Willard have not held open houses or community meetings to discuss the project. That is not what responsible growth looks like.

Any one of these findings is independently sufficient to justify denial. Taken together, they establish a pattern of concealment, misrepresentation, and procedural shortcuts that has no place in responsible land use planning. The Board should deny this application and require the developer to submit a master plan for the full 93-acre parcel before any portion of the property is considered for rezoning.

Appendix: Documentation and Sources

The following documents, records, and sources are referenced in this report. Items marked with an asterisk (*) are available for inspection upon request.

A. Greene County Planning Board Records

1. PB 2410 Staff Analysis, Greene County Commission Report to Greene County Planning Board, hearing date May 19, 2026 (includes property summary, staff analysis points 1–10, consultations, staff recommendation, planning board action, staff update, and county commission action) *

2. PB 2410 Sketch Plat, Auburn Meadows, prepared by Lee Engineering & Associates, L.L.C. *

3. PB 2410 Zoning Exhibit, Section 3, T29N, R23W, dated 04/27/2026, prepared by Lee Engineering & Associates, L.L.C. (showing the 14.31-acre amended area) *

4. PB 2410 Zoning Maps (area and aerial views) *

5. PB 2189 Zoning History (November 2021, withdrawn December 10, 2021) referenced in PB 2410 staff analysis at point 2

B. Sinkhole Deletion Email Chain

6. Email from Derek Lee (dlee@leeengineering.biz) to Kelly Short (Greene County Stormwater Engineer/Floodplain Administrator), dated July 30, 2025, requesting removal of sinkholes from the county map. CC: Daniel Richards (Lee Engineering). *

7. Email from Matt Forir (Greene County) to Michael Foster, dated August 1, 2025, stating “I believe we can delete these.” *

8. Email from Kelly Short to Michael Foster, dated May 4, 2026, forwarding the sinkhole deletion chain. *

9. Aerial photograph of the property (dated 03-29-23) showing features identified as sinkholes prior to deletion. *

C. Developer and City of Willard Correspondence

10. Letter from Derek Lee, PE (Lee Engineering and Associates, L.L.C.) to Greene County Resource Management, dated March 12, 2026, re: Urban Residential Request Reasoning. *

11. Email from Mike Ruesch (Willard Director of Planning and Development) to Michael Foster (Greene County), dated March 17, 2026, re: Request for Comment — Rezoning at North East Corner of State Highway EE and State Highway AB. *

12. Email from Michael Foster (Greene County planner) to Tammy Swisher (Willard Planning Assistant), dated March 16, 2026, requesting comment on the rezoning application. *

D. Water Advisory Board

13. City of Willard Water Advisory Board Meeting Minutes, April 15, 2026. Minutes submitted by Angie Wilson, Secretary. *

14. Video recording of the April 15, 2026 Water Advisory Board meeting — requested via Sunshine Law; City provided minutes only and demanded fee for the video.

E. Sunshine Law Requests and Responses

15. Sunshine Law Request #1, submitted April 23, 2026 (requesting emails from Derek Lee, Lee Engineering, DT Developer Inc, and Willard80 to the City of Willard; and all records related to Greene County Parcels 1403400148, 143400144, and 1403400149 for 2025–2026). *

16. City of Willard Response to Sunshine Law Request #1, undated, unsigned (estimated 1,000 hours, $172,500 — mathematically incorrect; correct figure is $17,250). *

17. Sunshine Law Request #2, submitted May 7, 2026 (requesting emails from Derek Lee or Lee Engineering to Wesley Young and/or Mike Ruesch for 2025–2026). *

18. City of Willard Response to Sunshine Law Request #2, signed by Courtney Myers, City Clerk (estimated 40 hours, $690, ready by July 31, 2026). *

F. Correspondence from Tamara Henk

19. Email from Tamara Henk to Mike Ruesch, dated April 30, 2026. *

20. Email from Tamara Henk to Mike Ruesch and Wesley Young, dated May 11, 2026. *

21. Email from Tamara Henk to Wesley Young, dated May 17, 2026. *

G. City of Willard Municipal Code (via ecode360.com/WI3481)

22. Section 705.090 — Water service connections outside city limits; irrevocable consent to annex requirement.

23. Section 710.525 — Sewer special connection permits; irrevocable consent and petition to annex requirement.

24. Section 710.545 — POTW special connections; deposits; permit requirement for connections outside sanitary sewer district.

25. Section 400.390 — Zoning Classification of Annexed Land (annexed territory retains county zoning until reclassified by the city).

26. Willard Mixed Use (MU) Zoning Code: https://ecode360.com/28400935

H. State and County Plans and Databases

27. Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Dye Trace Database: https://gis-modnr.opendata.arcgis.com/maps/modnr::dye-trace-1/explore

28. Missouri DNR, Upper Little Sac River Watershed Management Plan (pub3068): https://dnr.mo.gov/document-search/upper-little-sac-river-watershed-management-plan-summary-pub3068/pub3068

29. 2018 Greene County Land Use Plan (designating this area for rural residential uses).

30. Greene County UR-1 Urban Residence District Zoning Code: https://greenecountymo.gov/files/PDF/file.pdf?id=1572

31. 2019 City of Willard Comprehensive Plan: https://files-backend.assets.thrillshare.com/documents/asset/uploaded_file/5139/Cw/dfd72d0c-bafb-4f49-a7e5-6601e8e38c14/2019_Comprehensive_Plan.pdf

I. Missouri Sunshine Law

32. RSMo Chapter 610, Missouri Sunshine Law (Open Meetings and Records Law).

33. RSMo Section 610.021 — Closed meetings and closed records authorized when, exceptions: https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=610.021

J. Infrastructure and Engineering

34. Allgeier Martin sewer capacity data for Meadows West collection system (referenced by City Administrator Wesley Young at Water Advisory Board meetings).

35. Cochran Engineering water assessment (incomplete as of date of this report).

36. Springfield-Willard Wastewater Service Contract (Ordinance accepting the contract with Springfield for sewer, 2nd Read), City of Willard Board of Aldermen Meeting Packet, February 14, 2022 (Item 7; includes Section 102.A Definitions, Section 205 Inflow and Infiltration, Section 206 Satellite Community’s Sewer Collection System and Connection to Springfield, Section 211 POTW Capacity, Section 212 Overflow Response Plan, Section 312.B Failure to Comply, Section 413 Remedies, Section 415 Applicable Law, Section 416 Injunctive Relief): https://core-docs.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/documents/asset/uploaded_file/5139/CW/4801677/02-14-22_BOA_Packet.pdf

K. Public Record and Media Coverage

37. City of Willard Board of Aldermen Meeting, May 11, 2026 (recording available on the City of Willard YouTube channel; remarks by Wesley Young regarding the development and Sunshine request begin at approximately the 48-minute mark).

38. Online petition: “Stop Urban Housing from Coming to Willard District” (850+ signatures as of May 18, 2026).

39. Springfield Daily Citizen, coverage of PB 2410 denial (April 21, 2026) and remand (May 2026), by Jack McGee: https://sgfcitizen.org/government/springfield-greene-county/willard-rezoning-sewer-capacity/

40. Springfield Daily Citizen, coverage of revised proposal: https://sgfcitizen.org/government/springfield-greene-county/rezoning-proposal-greene-county/

41. KY3, “Neighbors near Willard say large-scale housing development will negatively impact their community,” April 15, 2026: https://www.ky3.com/2026/04/16/neighbors-near-willard-say-large-scale-housing-development-will-negatively-impact-their-community/

42. KSMU (NPR), “Greene County Planning and Zoning recommends denial of a rezoning request northwest of Springfield,” April 21, 2026: https://www.ksmu.org/2026-04-21/greene-county-planning-and-zoning-recommends-denial-of-a-rezoning-request-northwest-of-springfield

43. KOLR/OzarksFirst, “Proposed Willard development to go back to Planning & Zoning Board”: https://www.ozarksfirst.com/news/proposed-willard-development-to-go-back-to-planning-zoning-board/

44. KOLR/OzarksFirst, “Willard residents voice concerns over proposed development”: https://www.ozarksfirst.com/news/willard-rezoning-concerns-residents/

45. Springfield Business Journal, “Revision submitted for Willard housing development rezoning request”: https://sbj.net/stories/revision-submitted-for-willard-housing-development-rezoning-request,104048

L. Ozarks Transportation Organization (OTO)

46. OTO Board of Directors membership listing (confirming Derek Lee as a City of Springfield City Council Member on the Board): https://www.ozarkstransportation.org/boards-committees/board-of-directors

47. OTO Destination 2045 Amendment 8 (December 2024), removing planned future collector Farm Road 101 at State Highway EE from the Major Thoroughfare Plan due to “the proposed letting of a future R-1 lot subdivision”; approved by Greene County Commission October 7, 2024; OTO Board approved January 2025: https://www.ozarkstransportation.org/news/public-comment-period-destination-2045-amendment-8

48. OTO Board of Directors Meeting Minutes, January 16, 2025 (confirming Lee present, recused from Amendment 8 vote; minutes signed by Martha Smartt, OTO Secretary). *

49. OTO Destination 2045 Amendment 8 final packet (including Federal Functional Classification Change application filed by Kirsty Ketchum, Greene County Highway Department Chief Engineer, dated 12/11/2024; Lee Engineering sketch plans Project #2242 for Willard 80, LLC; sidewalk easement exhibit dated 05/04/2023; minor subdivision plat for Willard 80, LLC). *

50. Greene County Commission Order, Planning Board Case 2335, dated October 7, 2024, approving amendments to the Major Thoroughfare Plan for Farm Roads 101, 115, and 141. *

M. Recorded Subdivision Plats

51. Villa Park Meadows Final Plat (recorded March 1989), Greene County Recorder, showing smallest lot at 8,030.57 sq ft. *

52. Villa Park Heights Final Plat (recorded September 1974), Greene County Recorder, showing smallest lot at 10,959 sq ft. *

53. Prairie View Addition Final Plat (recorded 1975), Greene County Recorder, showing smallest lot at 13,300 sq ft. *

N. Additional Correspondence and Public Statements

54. City of Willard, MO Information Facebook post (April 17, 2026): “This property is not within the City of Willard, and the City is not in a position to annex it at this time.” (screenshot preserved) *

55. Email from Michael Foster (Greene County Planner) to Tamara Henk, dated April 13, 2026, following up from phone call with PB 2410 sketch plan and R-1/UR-1 regulations. *

56. Opposition letter, from Greene County resident and Elwood property owner, to Greene County Planning Board, dated April 21, 2026 (citing Greene County Land Use Plan, Springfield Urban Service Area Policy, Springfield-Branson Airport compatibility concerns). *

O. Willard Sewer System Financial Condition

57. City of Willard Board of Aldermen Meeting, December 9, 2024 (recording available on the City of Willard YouTube channel; City Administrator Wesley Young’s discussion of water and sewer fund insolvency and potential sale to a private company begins at approximately the 39-minute mark):

58. KOLR/OzarksFirst, “Willard to begin $5.8 million-dollar sewer line project,” January 19, 2026 (reporting on replacement of the main sewer line from the 94-Lift Station, significant breaks, EPA grant funding, and rate increase financing): https://www.ozarksfirst.com/news/willard-sewer-infrastructure-upgrade/

59. MAN of MISSOURI (Bradley Mowell), “Without rate increases, Willard Utilities will likely be insolvent in 2026,” December 26, 2024 (including direct quotations from City Administrator Wesley Young at the December 9, 2024 Board of Aldermen meeting): https://www.manofmissouri.com/p/without-rate-increases-willard-utilities

60. KY3, “Willard officials make decision on water and sewer rates in and out of city limits,” January 13, 2025, by Charmelle O’Dell (reporting flat rate increases of approximately $4 per 1,000 gallons for water and $10 per 1,000 gallons for sewer, applied equally to in-city and rural customers): https://www.ky3.com/2025/01/14/willard-officials-make-decision-water-sewer-rates-out-city-limits/

P. Sewer and Water Asset Transfer

61. Missouri Public Service Commission, Case WO-2007-0424, “In the Matter of the Application of The Meadows Water Company, North Suburban Public Utility Company and the City of Willard, Missouri for an Order Authorizing the Sale, Transfer and Assignment of Water and Sewer Assets to the City of Willard and in Connection therewith Certain other Related Transactions” (filed 2007; transfer approved March 3, 2008; transfer completed April 18, 2008; case closed May 11, 2008). City of Springfield filed Notice of Non-Opposition. Docket sheet: https://efis.psc.mo.gov/Case/Display/17075