Warren County supervisors voted 3-2 to deny a request to rezone about 36.89 acres along G50 Highway from A1 Agricultural to M1 Light Industrial for a proposed precast concrete manufacturing facility.

The proposal would have allowed construction of a roughly 40,000-square-foot precast concrete plant and related site work; the applicant’s attorney said the project would be privately funded and could initially employ 10–15 people, with a longer-term goal of 40–50 jobs and capital investment in excess of $10 million. The county zoning staff and the applicant’s representative told the board the site is shown as light industrial on the county’s long-range plan and that surrounding parcels already include M1 zoning.

County zoning director Lindsay (staff) told the board the applicant, identified in the record as Steven Jorgeson, purchased parcel number 0700-019-0220 in October and applied to rezone it from A1 to M1. Zoning staff recommended approval and placed the applicant’s packet into the record. The Warren County Planning and Zoning Commission had a split recommendation: two members voted to approve, two opposed and one abstained; by ordinance a split vote at planning and zoning forwarded the matter to the Board of Supervisors as a denial.

Attorney J.D. Dalton, representing the applicant, described the proposed operation as a “light” manufacturing use that would produce precast concrete wall panels and related products in a contained indoor process. Dalton told the board the operation would store cement in silos, place sand and rock in three-sided enclosures, contain process water on site for recycling, and limit dust with a paved 30-foot-wide, 100-foot-long concrete approach and on-site millings. Dalton said the State Fire Marshal reviewed the code analysis and classified the building as F2 (low hazard) under adopted codes and that the Warren Water District had approved a one-inch meter pit connection for the parcel’s water needs. He summarized: “this operation is is much more of the light light end of light industrial.”

More than two dozen residents and area property owners spoke in opposition during the public hearing. Speakers raised concerns about traffic and road wear on G50 Highway and the nearby interstate interchange, dust and air quality, the potential for water runoff or process-water impacts on nearby wells, effects on property values and the rural character of the area, and limitations on volunteer emergency services. Several neighbors said berms and trees shown in the applicant’s illustrations would not fully mitigate visual or dust impacts and questioned long-term maintenance of any landscaping. Jeff Pontier, a nearby property owner, said, “We do not want it.” Physician Amanda Croxton warned of pressure on volunteer EMS and the time to reach hospitals outside the county.

The City of St. Charles submitted a letter and a city council member spoke in person to reiterate concerns about heavy-truck traffic through town and the existing condition of local road structures. Rachel Gokin, executive director of Warren County Economic Development, spoke in favor of the project and noted that the applicant was not seeking county tax incentives; she described the project as a rare opportunity to add commercial tax base without public subsidy.

Supervisor discussion emphasized competing priorities: some supervisors pointed to the county comprehensive plan and potential tax revenue and jobs from new industrial development located near interstate interchanges; others said the community’s sustained and local opposition and the number of residential acreages close to the parcel weighed against rezoning. After debate, Supervisor Harrison moved to approve the rezoning and Supervisor DeCook seconded. Roll call votes were: Harrison — yes; DeWitt — no; Arnold — no; McIntyre — no; DeCook — yes. The tally (yes 2, no 3) caused the motion to fail.

Because the motion failed at the Board of Supervisors reading, no second or third reading will occur on this application, and the parcel remains zoned A1 Agricultural. The board took no further formal action on site-specific mitigation items presented in testimony; those measures would have been addressed through required permits and state agency reviews if rezoning had been approved.