Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Change topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Rezoning request RS24091 tied 3‑3; Planning & Zoning Commission forwards matter to County Council with no recommendation
Summary
The commission deadlocked 3‑3 on RS24091, a request to rezone property from R‑20 to R‑10 (Selma Village Estates area). Because of the tie, the commission forwarded the application to the Jefferson County Council with no recommendation for final action.
Get email alerts on the Zoning Change topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The Jefferson County Planning and Zoning Commission reached a 3‑3 tie on rezoning request RS24091 and, under the Unified Development Order, forwarded the matter to the County Council with no recommendation.
Staff summarized the request: the petitioner seeks to change the zoning of a partially developed property near the intersection of Grindstone Hill Lane and U.S. Highway 61 in Festus from single‑family residential R‑20 (20,000 square foot minimum lots) to single‑family residential R‑10 (10,000 square foot minimum lots). Staff recommended approval, noting prior partial grading, proximity to commercial parcels (including a Dollar General) and access to Highway 61 and I‑55. The petitioner, Igor Gusev of Henning and Associates, explained that changing lot sizes would allow housing product that the market will absorb and enable a developer to finish a project that stalled nearly 20 years ago; the petitioner said the practical intention was to use roughly 15,000‑square‑foot lots though R‑10 is requested because the UDO does not include a 15,000‑square‑foot district.
A resident, Zach Dumas, spoke in opposition and raised concerns about traffic, private road maintenance and the effect of increased density on his family’s private road. Commissioners asked whether the R‑10 zoning could be used to create a much denser subdivision; staff noted the UDO caps non‑planned developments at 100 lots and that specific layout and access would require subsequent approvals. After debate and a roll call, the commission split 3‑3. Under the UDO, a tie by the Planning and Zoning Commission requires forwarding the case to the County Council accompanied by the hearing transcript and evidence; the commission did so with no recommendation.
