St. Charles County Council rejects rezoning for 38-acre Whites Branch subdivision after heated public comment

St. Charles County Council members voted down substitute Bill 53‑69 on June 30, rejecting a request to rezone about 38 acres in the Whites Branch planning district from agricultural to R‑1E single‑family residential.

The vote followed more than an hour of public comment that divided neighbors and the property developer. Opponents criticized the proposal as inconsistent with the county master plan and unsafe because of traffic on nearby Highway 79; supporters, including the developer, said utilities and access are available and the property owner has a right to sell.

Why it matters: The parcel lies adjacent to existing Riverdale development near Highway 79 and Saint Paul. Residents argued the proposal would increase density well beyond the master plan’s intent for the Whites Branch district and could strain roads and services; the developer and a housing advocate said the rezoning would add housing stock for working households.

Neighbors pressed the council to uphold the county’s land‑use policies. “It’s 1 dwelling per gross acre requirement,” said Nicole Perkins, a Riverdale-area resident, noting language she said is in the master plan and arguing the proposed layout did not provide clustered open space or compatibility with surrounding large‑lot, agricultural uses. Mike Forrestal, whose home would be surrounded on three sides if the project proceeds, cited ordinance 405.077 and told the council that the statute requires rezoning to be consistent with the master plan: “So shall be, and the way I read it, not as a lawyer, is not advisory. It’s not a suggestion. It’s a mandate.”

Developer Tom Hughes, owner of Charlestown Crossing and TR Hughes Homes, told the council the acreage borders larger subdivisions and that the lots proposed would be larger than immediate neighboring lots. “Bernie McMenamy has a right to sell his ground,” Hughes said, arguing the county should not set a precedent of blocking development because of organized opposition.

Public safety and infrastructure were recurring themes. Several speakers called Highway 79 “Saint Charles County’s blood alley,” citing recent traffic deaths and a local Highway 79 Safety Coalition; Josh Sekowsky, speaking near the start of the public comment period, appealed for respectful debate while urging council members to consider fatalities and infrastructure shortfalls: “Respect is a prerequisite to the dialogue that we’ve been afforded this evening.”

Council action and outcome: Council members moved the bill up on the agenda and took it off the table for final action. In the roll call on the substitute, Councilman Swanson voted no; Councilman Bridal voted no; Councilman Elam voted no; Councilman Hammond voted no; Councilman Hollander voted yes; Councilwoman York voted yes; and Councilman Baker voted yes. With three ayes and four nays, the bill failed.

What stayed the same and next steps: Planning and zoning had denied the application; proponents later obtained notarized remonstrance signatures that required the council to consider the matter, which prompted the public hearing and final vote. Opponents urged the council to ask for a different plan that conforms to White’s Branch master‑plan density and provides buffers and clustering; proponents said utilities and market demand support the rezoning. The council rejected the current application but did not adopt an alternative; any future proposal would require a new filing or revised plan and follow the county’s rezoning process.

Votes at the meeting specifically on this matter were recorded publicly; the motion failed and no zoning change was made.