Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council tables Dyer Road rezoning after hours of public opposition; substitute adds remonstrance
Summary
St. Charles County Council on March 31 voted to table amended bill 53-69, a rezoning request near Riverdale, after extensive public comment contesting lot sizes, traffic and public‑safety readiness; the council earlier accepted a substitute that formally attached a remonstrance to the file.
St. Charles County Council on March 31 voted to table amended bill 53-69 — a proposal to rezone land near Riverdale from agricultural to R1E single-family residential (application RZ25-01) — after residents urged the council to reject the plan and the council accepted a substitute measure adding a petitioner remonstrance to the file.
The remonstrance, the council was told during debate, requires a higher threshold to approve the rezoning. Council members accepted the substitute bill placing that remonstrance on the record and then voted to table the application at the applicant’s request so the developer can revise plans and consult with stakeholders.
Neighbors and residents used the public-comment period to urge rejection of the proposal. Scott Dyer, a Riverdale resident and local real-estate business owner, said the community had tried “petitions, PNZ voting us down” and that the plan did not fit the area. “I think the area calls for 1 acre lots, 3 acre lots, and 5 acre lots,” Dyer said. Jessica Cook, a St. Paul resident who described farming and restoring a property in the area, said “high‑density housing is not honoring the land,” and asked the council to preserve larger lot sizes.
Former law-enforcement officer Paul Hilton pressed the council on emergency response capacity, saying he had waited for backup and that “if you’re going to put more homes in an area that the public safety is not there, the public safety has to be there first.” Ray Weatherall also described traffic congestion on Highway 79 and called additional housing “premature.” Josh Sekowsky said the applicant had previously changed proposals and that tabling shortly before a vote felt like a tactic to blunt organized opposition: “That’s the intention, is a cooling off period.”
On the council floor, members debated procedure and fairness to residents who traveled for the meeting. Councilman Baker moved to table the bill “at the applicant’s request” to give the applicant time to rework the plan; the motion was seconded and carried. Council members explained that because the developer intends to change lot sizes and other elements, the identical‑application one‑year resubmission restriction would not apply if the developer returns with a different plan. Council staff and members also noted that adding the remonstrance meant the vote would require a supermajority rather than a simple majority.
Council statements emphasized different priorities. Council members who supported tabling said the remonstrance altered the legal posture of the request and that allowing the applicant to revise it could resolve the district representative’s concerns. Other members and several residents said tabling shortly before a scheduled vote without wide notice was unfair to those who had traveled to attend and to the district councilman representing the area.
The council said it will notify the public when the item returns to the agenda. Councilmembers stated that the next posting could be as soon as three days or up to two weeks, depending on when the applicant seeks to bring the item back and whether changes are described as substantial.
Votes and formal motions on 53‑69 are recorded in council minutes and in the actions list below.
