The Bremer County Board of Supervisors voted to approve the first reading of Ordinance 2507 on Nov. 25, a request to rezone a 30-acre parcel owned by Mark and Wendy Halbach from A-1 (agricultural) to A-2 (residential). The vote followed a half-hour public hearing in which neighbors raised concerns about traffic safety on County Road C33, drainage and well-water impacts, and the parcel's removal from the county comprehensive plan in earlier years.

Mark Halbach, the applicant, told the board he seeks to create a concept subdivision of eight lots, or as many as 11 to 12 depending on lot sizes and economics, and argued the change would increase the county's tax base. "This is to improve the county, increase the tax base, and simply move the county forward," he said, framing the request as an exercise of property rights and noting he had a letter of support from the farmer who had leased the ground for 15 years.

Neighbors offered extended, specific testimony opposing the rezoning. Mick Weiss, a resident adjacent to the property, cited traffic growth on C33 and a series of local accidents, saying additional homes would add dozens of daily vehicle trips and increase safety risk. Several speakers raised drainage and septic concerns, referencing past flooding near newly developed lots and potential runoff that could affect wells. A number of neighbors also said the parcel was intended to remain agricultural under the county's comprehensive plan and presented a petition opposing the change.

Board members discussed the evidence during deliberations. One supervisor told colleagues that sheriff's records reflect 11 crashes in a 14-year span on a two-mile stretch that includes the area but noted several incidents were driveway-related or involved deer, which may not reflect systemic danger directly attributable to residential subdivision. Planning staff and a supervisor also noted state urban design standards (SUDAS) and modern retention practices that would be required during development to address runoff and drainage concerns.

Supervisors referenced depositions and records indicating the parcel had been listed for future housing in earlier versions of the comprehensive plan and later removed; one supervisor described that history as "disappointing" and said it informed a preference to reopen comprehensive-plan rules for review. After discussion, the board moved to approve the ordinance's first reading (motion by Bob; second by Corey). The motion carried on voice vote; the board recorded ayes and set the second reading for Dec. 2 at 9:15 a.m.

The next procedural step is the scheduled second reading, when the board will again consider public comment and could move to adopt or deny the ordinance. The meeting record does not show a roll-call tally; minutes note the first-reading motion carried with all supervisors present saying "aye."