By Pauline Masson
An attorney, working for a group that opposes the planned subdivision on Lamar Parkway at Old Gray Summit Road say the zone change of the subdivision site and the preliminary development plan approved by aldermen violate the city’s comprehensive plan and zoning ordinances.
In a letter addressed to the City and dated September 10, the firm of Zick, Voss, Politte, Richardson & Brinker, Washington, Missouri, notified the city that its client – the subdivision opponents – can file suit against the city unless the city bring the subdivision approvals in line with the law.
The four-page letter detailed a number of actions in approving the subdivision that the firm says are in violation of city regulations.
The most egregious claim is that the city has approved more homes for the development than allowed by city ordinance.
The attorneys say city ordinance 400.160 specifically states that, “a PUD ordinance shall not increase the number of lots otherwise permitted under such district regulations . . . Logically this means that if R-1B requires a minimum of ten thousand square feet per lot, a developer can only build 4.356 homes per acre, excluding the need to use any land for streets or common ground, but the subdivision preliminary plan that aldermen approved contains 5.33 homes per acre.
McBride Homes wants to build a 45-home subdivision known as The Manors at Brush Creek on an 11.45 acre parcel located at Lamar Park, extending from Old Gray Summit Road to the railroad overpass.
The group that opposes the subdivision calls itself Pacific Zoning Matters.
At its June 20 board meeting, aldermen approved a preliminary development plan with amendments that described the project. Aldermen also approved an ordinance changing the zoning of the subdivision site from R1-C to R1-B PUD-PDR.
A spokesman for Pacific Zoning Matters said a number of neighbors continue to feel strongly that the city has overstepped its authority and they are making plans to ask the courts to force the city to reduce the number of homes in the planned development to the limit in ordinance 400.160
A hand lettered sign that opponents put up on Old Gray Summit at the junction with Lamar Parkway was vandalized.
“The vandalism won’t change anything,” a spokesperson for the group said. “We will continue to call for a better plan.”
The number one goal of the group is convince the city that the number of homes in the development exceeds what is legal under the approved zoning.
“They need to reduce the number of homes,” the spokesperson said.
In the lead up to the zoning public hearings opponents gathered 911 names on a petition.
“We actually had a thousand names, but after investigation 716 were Pacific residents.” The spokesperson said. “It was encouraging. All of the city officials were elected with fewer than 700 votes. We thought it was enough to make them realize that the public was speaking.”
The attorney hired by the group told city officials that the firm’s opinion did not address the “politics” of the city.
“This letter is based entirely on Pacific’s failure to abide by binding law,” the letter said.
Well this certainly is interesting 🧐. If an outside law firm can quote from your own City ordinance and pinpoint the exact ordinance and ordinance number that you violated in adopting this preliminary plan why would you have not known this and denied the the preliminary plan from the developer. Next question 🙋♂️: Was the City Attorney incompetent by not checking the ordinance against the preliminary plan before the Board approved it? Is it possible this City Attorney was aware of this ordinance and told the Board of Alderman just ignore it. We will do what we must to get this project approved. This narcissistic (City Attorney) the De-facto Mayor, City Administrator, Human Resource Director, Police Commissioner, Chief City Collector and yet to be named Positions he will acquire ad the need arises must now advice the Board how to respond to this letter from this law firm alleging the City has violated the law. Guess what his legal advice will be to the Acting Mayor and Board of Alderman. Come on folks. Put your thinking 🤔 cap on.
The city”clowntorney” is so scarred of whoever is pulling the strings in this group that he is afraid of loosing his job. He writes opinions as he is dictated. He knows with his pitiful record he can’t possibly get another attorney position elsewhere.
While I don’t have a strong opinion on this subdivision topic, I’m glad to see Pacific citizens standing up and making their voices heard via the proper channels. You can gripe and complain on Facebook all you want but without taking any actual action it’s just hot air. This is encouraging.
Nick: We are glad that you and over 900 other residents and area residents feel that way!
Residents for Pacific Zoning Maters
[email protected]
Send an e-mail if you would like more information on how to support the legal action.
On the first hearing on the subdivision proposal there was well over 50 citizens in attendance. Approximately 5 spoke for the plan, mostly real estate people who hoped to make large sums of money. Not exactly an unbiased group. The vast majority had many points of concern; traffic, road safety and congestion and high density housing that did not fit the area, storm water and sewage system overloads, and many others were voiced. When it came time for the first vote the board almost could not restrain their eagerness and laughingly voted unanimously for the project. They openly scoffed at a petition of 900 signatures. So much for using the proper channels. What a sad joke the board has become.
Your eloquent words ring truth to all who will listen. The opponents of this project were very concise, clear, forthcoming, articulate and laid out their case of opposition with overwhelming evidence of facts, not supposition. They used the proper channels as you alluded too. Those proper channels meant absolutely nothing to the Acting Mayor and the Board. I watched the council meeting here in Peoria, IL on Facebook since it was streamed live. I served the City of Pacific at one time as Secretary to the Planning and Zoning Commission under then Mayor Kenny Quennoz who appointed me. The facts clearly appear to support the view that this council had meant with this developer and concessions were made by both parties orally to insure this Board would find a way for passage of this development at this council meeting. My question remains the same🙋 Was the City Attorney aware that this ordinance existed? Did the Board ever meet in Executive Session and ever ask the City Attorney who claims he is there to insure they do not violate the law discuss this ordinance and how it might derail this developer from proceeding? My other question remains a topic of discussion. What legal advice do you think this City Attorney who is the De-facto Mayor, Police Commissioner, City Ad-Hoc Prosecutor, Deputy Chief Housing Inspector, Chief City Collector, Chief Animal Control Director will be. A NARCISSISTIC NEVER ADMITS WRONG 😑. You tell me WHAT HIS LEGAL ADVICE WILL BE.🤷🤷🤷🤷🤷
ANSWER: I AM RIGHT! THEY ARE WRONG 😑 This Law Firm is to IGNORANT to understand that which only I can know about the passage and interpretation of City Ordinances. Remember when I SPEAK YOU BETTER LISTEN 👂!!!!!!!! Let them file a lawsuit if they wish. Why do you think the city has insurance? It will cost us nothing, I will hand pick one ☝️ of my friends to defend the City, we won’t settle🙌, it will just drag on and on and when we lose we will just keep appealing all the way to the Missouri Supreme Court and when we lose there on to the United States District Court , 8th Circuit setting in St, Louis and all the way to the United States Supreme Court. This will buy us time, allow the developer to build according to his preliminary plan, cost us nothing and the insurance company will simply to raise our umbrella coverage because in every civil lawsuit the losing side must always pay the Court Cost so if they have to pay out $200K -$300K THOUSAND to pay the attorney his hourly fee of $200 per hour plus the Court Cost because I gave you bad advice we pay more in premiums for out insurance BUT IN THE END I WIN ☝️☝️☝️☝️
Corrections: Grammatical Errors: Should have read simply have to raise our umbrella coverage and should have read more in premiums for our insurance.
The Preliminary Plat was determined to be in violation of the city’s own zoning ordinances.
Taking legal action to force our elected officials to comply with our own city and state laws!
Support the effort to force change with a donation.
visit pacificzoningmatters.org
Residents for Pacific Zoning Matters