Information within is a matter of public record & in "their own words"
Battleship Rock on Table Rock Lake Missouri ... aka "Victory Springs"
2022/Jan10 - Taney Co PnZ, ReZoning Initial Meeting
Session A - Call to order
Starts @ 6 min 20 seconds. Case #21022. Talks begin about road compatibility and other topics concerning Grandview Estates HOA & Lakeview Paradise Estates HOA in Stone County, of which Tall Tree Drive passes directly through. Meetings also comprised concerned citizens of Williams Landing HOA, The Boulders and The Provence communities, and other interested parties (Taney and Stone Co), in opposition to the "Victory Springs Resort on Table Rock Lake", previously referred to as the Battleship Rock Development.
Interestingly, the Taney County Fire Chief and Emergency Services Manager, Chris Berndt, was actively present and in opposition at the PnZ meetings [concerning the access and thus permitting issues] (see NewsLeader Article response from the Fire Chief). Mr. Berndt was also active during litigation over the next several years, maintaining his position .
Developer and "Mike" opening comments ... Mike never states his full name for the audio record and only introduced by Developer as Mike. We are making assumptions here, but Mike could be an attorney... not sure.
Full meeting (Session A to F) : 1hr 30 min
Session B - Developer continues
Developer - "you can see from my slides, I took measurements and average width of road is 23 feet"... See Traffic Study Report.
@02:18: Developer- "Mikes going to present a traffic study..." [to try and show that it wouldn't matter if zoned R1 or NR1; traffic flow and volume no different]
@03:30: Developer - "At this point I'll go ahead and turn it over to Mike, he will speak to the traffic study..."
@03:40: Mike (an attorney?) - " I didn't do a traffic study, per se... I did a memorandum, I used ITE" [traffic engineering handbook] . "I would say fairly inconsequential the level of traffic for that resort".
* Of note: a legitimate traffic study was completed by Grandview Estates and presented . The Developers showed up with notes they pulled from a text book of engineering.
@ 06:25 - Committee member - " So it is your intent to build that entire road to your development [from highway, through both subdivisions] ?
Mike to Developer - " Do you have any intent in widening this [entire road]? "
Developer - " I don't know if we could widen it as a private citizen or developer"; "this is why we invited folks over for cake and coffee" [the intent in this conversation is noting that Developers were leaning on the current home owners in the two subdivisions to assist them in the widening of the road, financially ].
The PnZ committee members are questioning the validity, up front, that the roads are insufficient and not wide enough... This was one of the first topics of the meeting that most of the committee members saw as a major pitfall .
Committee member @ minute 9... making the direct point he knows that section of road and states he sees there being a traffic flow issue and hard to navigate. "I looked at this parcel of property myself a long time ago and this [the road] is what talked me out of doing it then". Developer - "Right... sure... I realize there will be significant cost there. My goal [today] was to show you our willingness to participate in improvements [to the road]. Umm, we really don't have any other access to the property... it's got be there or nothing."
Committee member - " I was just sitting here thinking about 60 homes... could you imagine the amount of construction traffic."
@11:30 - Developer - "There has been some rumors of that road [extension of Tall Tree Drive as a private driveway to a property owner new home construction in Lakeview Paradise Estates] being put in by the gentleman that owns it to put in more vacation rentals there, so it seems like there is already something happening there..."
"Somebody has got to come along and pony up." - Developer
* Updated, for the record, everything developer just stated @11:30 was/is unfounded and not well researched as none of his statements of "fact" to the committee was correct, and blanketly naming family names associated with such activity that was/ is false (as it pertains to developing new STRs on 6 plats on new road cut in). In fact, to their chagrin, Stone Co Commission later in the same year disallowed any new vacation rentals in R1 subdivisions, not allowing for new provisional permits. It's essentially illegal now to have an STR unless already grandfathered.
Session C - Developer vs Committee members, debate continues
Committee member - "Stone County does not maintain that road?" Developer - "Not at this time"
* Updated, over 2 years later from this interaction, Stone County, a named defendant in a suit brought by the developers, to include defendants within the Lakeview Paradise Estates HOA, Stone Co (paraphrased) will not be providing any road support / improvement / maintenance on Tall Tree Drive...ever.
Committee member - "Where I'm going is, I'd need to see some guaranteed road improvements before I could support this"; retort by Developer... "I'd be willing to do whatever to help support your decision" ... eventually given a Mulligan and able to quickly pull together some road numbers within 30 days, in order to tell the committee what they need to hear. Great "due diligence" and preparation. In his own words, he has "never developed" anything like this (scroll down to listen to Session F @ 04:45).
Attention needs brought to Slideshow below, "Compatibility Adjacency Study" , in particular Page 4 .
Another committee member notes that they would need to expect community push back since Stone Co doesn't maintain the road, but the community does pay private money to maintain the road. * Flash forward, Developers brought suit against one of the communities (Lakeview Paradise Estates in July 2022) for the very prescient "community pushback" that Taney Co Commissioners referred.
Committee member - "Do you plan on turning the road over to the [Stone] county ?" Developer - "That would be one of the goals, for longevity, snow plowing ... we planned on working with the neighbors to share some cost, but that is looking like not an option based on some of the feedback..."
@06:26 - Committee member to ? Mike - "Have you driven that road ?"
Mike - "No I have not..."
*** Again, we are not clear "who" Mike actually is ... a road contractor or Developers attorney? They did not ID themselves for the audio file.
Committee member - "I have a hard time supporting 60 houses, nightly rentals or not, at the end of a one lane road... the roads been pretty chewed up... somebody has got to do the road... without the road totally [to specifications]... this doesn't make sense to me... in my experience the developer would with stand the cost of the road, because he's the one to stand to gain the benefits ... and you hope that at some point [Stone] county takes it over..."
@07:00 - committee member - "I understand what your saying, if its a nightly rental or regular homes...but, somebody has got to do the road, and to go in there and just start building homes, without that road being totally ready to handle that... this doesn't make sense to me." "Right now... you're just asking for rezoning...the developer would, in my experience, with stand the cost for the road..."
CRITICAL INTERACTION BETWEEN COMMITTEE AND DEVELOPER AND COUSEL:
@ 8 min 25 seconds: discussion between Attorney? Mike & committee member regarding "offsite improvements" [ie; road improvements] about "rezoning with conditions" stipulations. (8min 48 sec)... "is it not what you would do, to place the condition [of presenting detailed road plans to Stone Co] as a condition of rezoning ?"
Committee member - "makes sense to me".
*It sounds like an understanding by Taney County PnZ by and between developer / attorney?, was openly discussed and agreed to as a condition to rezone from Agriculture to commercial, that developer FIRST bring Tall Tree Drive into Stone County road specifications [before any development of the commercial parcel] . This is an interpretation of the words as spoken. We are witnessing a real time negotiation and verbal understanding of how to proceed [should Taney Co Commission move to allow rezoning from A1 to NC1].
@ 10min; committee member line of questioning about taking more time to [do due diligence] and Developer states that "no we are currently under contract" ; would require a grace period extension with seller; committee member off distance, but with volume up, you can hear him respond/ comment, " to improve that road from your property all the way to the highway is going to take a lot of [muffled]".
Developer - states "we may not need to improve it all the way to the highway... it's wide enough"; it's essentially just a gravel road up to Grandview Estates (from their property) and that there would not need to be any improvements to road width within Grandview Estates.
The facts remain established and were presented to Taney County in the Traffic and Road Condition Study
Another committee member chimes in @ 10:35, setting more "conditions of rezoning" off site improvements, discussing that developer should be expected to post a road bond in Stone County to "insure that the road gets paved"...
Developer - "And let's say Stone County didn't want to take it over... I don't think anyone would buy a $700,000 home with a road that's a little cantankerous "
@14 minutes, new committee member: "So let's switch gears a little bit, we are talking about the road, the road, the road... let's talk about the re zoning itself... we beat the road to death".
Committee chair ... "Let's move on and hear what the people that live there have to say about this" (Continues below @ Session D)
Session D - Community opposition speakers
Quip made by one of the committee members; "I didn't say road, did I?" (chuckles from the gallery) [a retort to the brow beating PnZ chair about not talking about the Stone Co road conditions]: "Let's keep it down, we are not stupid, we can understand what it is , we don't have to be told a dozen times, and ... we'll try to make an intelligent decision"
Residents of Grandview Acres leading off... pointing out all the key opposition points:
#1: M.S. of Grandview Acres: "we've submitted 50-60 letters in opposition as well as 100 signatures on petitions opposing rezoning, many of these people are in this room" ; highlights of opposing points in those letters starts at 1 min 30 sec marker.
"Road dangers, road maintenance challenges, water, well and ecological considerations, trespassing / safety concerns, wildlife disruption..."
#2: C.B. of Grandview Acres: " we've seen lots of changes over the years but one thing is constant, our roads are dangerous" . "You see it with those nightly rentals already [Lakeview Paradise Estates]." Arundel, maintained by Stone County, is 18 ft wide, I measured it. We have accidents [due to steep roads]. Our roads are narrow. Equipment does have to be off loaded in Grandview Estates in order to get back to Paradise Estates. These roads are dangerous for us; you can't fix this. We live on a mountain.
#3: C.L. of Grandview Acres: "We've meet with our county commissioner Hank Smythe on many occasions and Stone Co will not help or maintain [Post Oak / Tall Tree]. They are not taking over any roads. I'm a civil engineer, I've been doing this 35 years. We've done a traffic study. It's going to be a nightmare. We have to yell at people all the time to slow down. "During construction, it will be like living on a quarry road".
#4: K.H. of Grandview Acres: ( continues in Session E below)
#5: D.E. of Grandview Acres: (continues in Session E below) - "I'm also speaking for John Holdermann who owns the 80 acres across the line".
"I didn't say road, did I?" [retort to the brow beating PnZ chairman about not talking about the Stone Co roads again]
#6: A.S. of Williams Landing: (continues in Session E below) - water usage is concern on the current community aquifer supply; fire control and sufficient water supply for fire sprinklers that will be required in these properties; active issues with Taney Co fire services not understanding they have fire response required out there, thinking Stone Co should be responding
#7: T.S. of Grandview Acres: (continues in Session E below) - "we can talk about all the this that and other; there is no way this won't affect our properties". "Like putting an interstate through a school zone." "It's got to be the right place at the right time."
Developer follow up to community member complaints - "I sure picked a bad day to give up drinking. I of course never meant to upset the neighborhood. Never in my life has my integrity been questioned and I won't let it be questioned tonight". "I've put a piece of property under contract... sounds like the roads are dangerous regardless of whether or not we buy it or not. I would suggest the neighborhood try and fix it." (harrumph in audience).
Session E - Hank Smythe of Stone Co Commission says he won't take on the road
Grandview Estates community members continue and explain a conversation from Stone Co commissioner Hank Smythe , pledges that Stone Co will NOT help out in any capacity with the road improvements (and that is how it ended up in 2024, after a more than 2 year legal battle in Stone County Missouri ).
"That road is one way in and one way out. Who will maintain those roads? It's literally on the side of a mountain"
"That is why those dozers are in their, fixing wash outs in Lakeview Paradise Estates" from all the rain.
@ 01:38 -- Grandview makes the compelling note that "imagine you own a piece of property, your dream home " and this comes along and threatens it. "I've worked all my life to have this dream retirement home"; if I have to sell, no one is going to want to buy my house will all this traffic going by my house every day
THEN the Taney Co PnZ committee chair, after some compelling statements, adds ( @min 4:26)... Folks, we get it... the Stone County roads are bad. "We don't need to hear anymore about how bad the roads are. Unless you have something else to add, we don't need to hear about the roads", he says.
(THE TANEY COUNTY PNZ DIDN'T WANT TO HEAR THE ISSUES AND SHUT DOWN THE MOST IMPORTANT VIEWS FROM AREA RESIDENTS ON THE ROAD CONDITIONS AND SAFETY ) .
Session F - "I'm the Expert"
@ 05:26... "if we are going to have to be responsible for the entirety of the road improvements with no help from the neighborhoods and we have to reduce density of the homes, umm, it may not become viable." (with a verbal nod of agreement to this statement from the committee chair). "I understand the careful balance between quiet enjoyment and a persons right to do what they want to do with the property; it's just a matter of economics, ."
Taney Co PnZ chair.. @ min 0130, "What are your feelings about this [to board members], anything you want to discuss amongst ourselves ? anyone want to make a motion, one way or the other?"
One of the board members -- "Can I say road?" [part and parcel to the tone of the evening]
Responses from other committee members... "I need to see something more on the road, some kind of plan. I don't know how you can do that, but luckily the burden is not on me... I need to see a bone fide no kidding plan to see this this and this... I can't support it; that's where I'm at." -- this argument against allowed for the 3rd option to allow for the Mulligan Shot.
Developer, states @ 04:45 ... "THIS IS MY FIRST ATTEMPT AT A DEVELOPMENT LIKE THIS".
@ 05:26... "if we are going to have to be responsible for the entirety of the road improvements with no help from the neighborhoods, and we have to reduce density of the homes, umm, it may not become viable." (with a verbal nod of agreement to this statement from the committee chair). "I understand the careful balance between quiet enjoyment and a persons right to do what they want to do with the property; it's just a matter of economics, we will have to look at that."
Gets to a point at the end of this session where there is a back and forth and many committee members do question the validity of this project and especially the density of 60+ homes.
APPLICATION MOVED TO POSTPONEMENT TO MEETING NEXT MONTH , FEB 14, 2022. This gave Developer, who was not prepared at this meeting, to regroup and come back .
2022/Feb 14 - Taney Co PnZ, "Mulligan"
Session A - Call to order / Developer has a redo
This is the follow up PnZ meeting, second attempt at explaining, given to Developer, after he was unsuccessful in making his initial case and not getting good feed back from more than a majority of committee members.
Meeting starts at marker 03:11. Committee postponed Jan meeting "to allow the representative to gather more information..." - as stated @ 03:29 marker.
At 05:00 the committee speaker makes clear that the monkey is not on their back. He states "I want to be clear that what we are doing today is not to approve or deny the application as presented, but to approve or deny that it goes before the commission for review". "Its only a recommendation, for or against".
Mulligan shot starts @ 05:29 marker.
" We got down there with a drone to help everybody better visualize " .
"Stone County does not maintain any portion of that road".
***After Developer finishes speaking, @13:00 , the committee person directing the flow of the meeting states that they reached out to both Taney County attorney and Stone County PnZ, "we have no authority, zero, in reference to what is being discussed about the road".
"Our decision will be purely placed on the parcel of property located within Taney County".
So, Taney Co PnZ Committee chair effectively removes any further discussion about the road, yet again, making it clear they are just going to be recommending moving this on to recommendation for the Commissioners regarding the parcel sizes for his development.
Session B - Developer(s) continue to speak
The other male partner Developer speaks now.
He references the sold White River BnB off Taney County Rd / Stone Co Rd called Ozark Hollow Rd, a public county road that does not go through any subdivisions inside of Stone County.
He is putting forth misleading / disinformation to the committee that White River (now called Glass Haus Weddings) is accessed through "subdivisions"; that is the implication of his monologue before the committee.
It's absolutely false, but he's trying to say "we'll , this is already being or has been done before".
He refers to "resorts" that you have to drive through properties to get to on Ozark Hollow Rd (interestingly enough the road was originally named Happy Hollow Resort Rd, go figure.
Well, he is talking about Happy Hollow Resort, having been there since the lake was started in the 1950s. Williams landing was developed after this and thus you have him correctly noting, if you want to go to Happy Hollow Resort (a grandfathered resort) you must drive through a subdivision to get there.
Attorney for the developer(s) speaks @ 0350 .
Opposition speakers begins @ 05:40 .
Discussion of difference between "arterial roads" vs. "collector roads"
Grandview resident states, "Mark Ferguson, a well known expert in housing values states that you can expect a 20% DECREASE in property values of your house when [ you go from a quiet street to a busy road ]"
Continues over to Session C, D and E
Session C - Opposition views continue
Grandview counsel speaks @07:25; stating that Stone County Commission stated to him that the parties involved "may need to have a law suit"... very foretelling as a suit did ensue in mid July 2022.
Session D - Offends the Gallery of 100s of residents !
@09:00, this Developer erroneously continues with line of falsehoods stating, like he knows, that there are neighbors that have "built a road to more plats specifically to develop into 5 or 6 more vacation homes".
As of Fall 2025, this has never occurred as no prima facia evidence of any online advertised listings, nor can it or will it be the case, as it would be illegal since Stone County Commission passed an Amendment to halt any more vacation rentals as of August 2022. Again, false statements made by Developers to garner favor and try and support their goals of getting commission on their side.
@ 10min (10:00) "we are not putting high rise condos or dancing girls... just homes...and nice ones... nicer than anyone has seen out there". (the hundreds in attendance openly harrumph loudly )
... "I didn't mean to offend... I realize that was in poor taste". Out of control.
Session E - Continues and then the vote to recommend, passes narrowly
@ 00:23; Developer continues to discuss with committee and states in response to a person in attendance regarding his up hill battle about the road ; "sounds like there is going to be quite a lot of opposition"
@08:40; committee member PnZ seems to be reiterating, yet again (we are just following the guidelines)
@10:50; "He deserves an answer, pitch forks aside..."
@11:00; Motion made to recommend moving them to next phase for 3 county commissioners to decide; passes 5/4 . Second attempt to present a cleaner presentation and still 45% of the committee don't see it.
2022/Feb 22 - Taney Co Commission ReZone
Session L - Taney Co Fire Chief , Against Development
Chris Berndt, Taney Co Fire Chief, goes on record as to why this development is a bad idea; 2 of the 3 commissioners didn't listen to their fire chief/ head of county EMS; "we are greatly concerned about the access to that property.. or lack there of"
Session M - Grandview / Williams Landing residents comment
M.S. comments; discussion of Change.org petition and why created
T.S. comments, also from Grandview Acres
A.S. of Williams Landing, comments
Session O - Grandview Acres comments / Developers Rebutt
D.E. continues comments
Conclusion of opposition statements
B.Y. - other male developer comments begins ; "we ARE willing to take on the burden of the road... we want to make sure we have good access";
Commissioners make comments...
Session P - Commissioners back and forth with Developers ; LPE resident comments
Main Developer - "we don't think we should be responsible for the entire road"
S.M. comments for Lakeview Paradise Estates residents
T.L. - female partner developer speaks; "we actually looked at Leavitt Lane as the first road option for access"
K.H. for Grandview Acres speaks again in rebuttal
Sheila Wyatt asks Developer about whether they intend on finishing entire road, from highway to development; no real answer given
Session Q- Final Decisions and Vote
Sheila Wyatt continues discussion with Developer
Prescient comment by Sheila... "Opinion from the attorney from Stone Co is that it may have to be determined by the circuit court and a circuit court lawsuit... by a circuit court judge... he could see where some parts were dedicated and others were not". And drumroll ... that is exactly what happened.
Motion carries 2/1 to rezone . Sheila Wyatt, District 2 commissioner, was the only dissenting vote of the three commissioners (Mike Scofield & Brandon Williams voting FOR rezoning). Even the Taney County Fire Chief was not in favor. And he was quoted in the Springfield News Leader reiterating as much, over 2 years later.