The Christian County Commission voted 2-1 to deny a rezoning request for case 20250187, a proposal to change about 30.5 acres from A-1 agricultural to AR (agricultural-residence) near State Highway U outside Rogersville. The commission’s decision followed a lengthy public hearing in which neighbors raised concerns about groundwater, stormwater, traffic and loss of farmland, and the Planning and Zoning Commission had earlier forwarded a recommendation of denial by a 4–3 vote.

County planning staff introduced the case as a request to rezone roughly 30.5 acres to allow future residential lots in the AR district; staff said the county’s future land-use map supports agricultural and dispersed residential uses and that the rezoning alone would not, by itself, authorize a subdivision or improvements that would later be reviewed through a preliminary plat process. Planning staff member Scott Wiesenhall said there are no mapped sinkholes or floodplains on the property and that, strictly as a rezoning request, staff did not expect major environmental or traffic impacts.

The applicant’s attorney, Joshua Baker of Evans and Dixon, said the developer plans eight lots — mostly three-acre parcels with two larger lots — and that an engineering report estimates about 76 daily vehicle trips from the proposed subdivision. “We are not gonna have a substantial increase in traffic,” Baker said, adding that the larger lot sizes and natural vegetation would limit stormwater runoff and that the developer planned to work with county staff to meet any stormwater requirements.

Neighbors disputed those assurances. Matt Daley, who lives next door, told the commission he moved to the country “to have a serene, peaceful view” and does not support a subdivision “right next door.” Several speakers who own or farm adjacent acreage raised similar objections, emphasizing a long local history of hay and cattle production and saying rezoning would set a precedent for parcel-by-parcel conversion of farmland to residential uses.

Water availability and quality were recurring themes. James Stewart, who farms about 10 acres nearby, said the local water table is “limited” and worried that additional wells and septic systems would strain groundwater. Civil engineer Daniel Richards, who prepared the applicant’s engineering report, replied that Missouri Department of Natural Resources rules regulate wells and on-site sewage systems and that low-density development “rarely has an effect upon the water table” because of recharge and septic effluent returning to ground. Other residents recounted past drought conditions and reported sand and debris in existing wells during dry periods.

Environmental concerns extended to surface-water impacts. Colt Smith, a nearby landowner, said the Findlay River has seen increasing gravel and sediment and that construction runoff and landscaped lawns with irrigation could add pollutants to the watershed. Several residents asked how stormwater would be handled on the proposed preliminary plat; the applicant said stormwater design and any detention or water-quality features would be developed in coordination with Christian County stormwater staff if the project moved forward.

Several residents also said they had not been notified about past map changes that placed nearby parcels in AR zoning. Planning staff explained that in the countywide rezoning in 2010 consultants and county staff applied filters such as parcel size and then produced a draft map that was subject to public review; the staff presentation noted some older, smaller lots remain in the area because they were created previously and predate modern subdivision rules.

The Planning & Zoning Commission had forwarded a recommendation of denial (4–3). At the commission meeting a motion to deny the rezoning passed 2–1. The county will not advance a preliminary plat related to this site while the rezoning remains denied; staff said an applicant may still submit a major-subdivision application under existing A‑1 zoning, but county staff and DNR standards could limit densities under that classification.

Speakers on both sides urged the commission to consider longer-range planning, notification practices and whether concurrent consideration of rezoning and preliminary plats would give the commission more information. Commissioners said the case highlighted broader questions about how the county’s zoning map and comprehensive plan are applied and when the elected commission should intervene versus the volunteer Planning & Zoning Commission.

The county’s decision closes the immediate rezoning request; any future subdivision or other applications for the property would require separate filings and staff and commission review.