Washington County Quorum Court denies O'Brien Ready Mix conditional use permit after residents raise health, safety and compatibility concerns

The Washington County Quorum Court on Nov. 12 adopted an ordinance denying a conditional use permit (CUP) for O’Brien Ready Mix’s proposed concrete mixing facility near Bob Kidd Lake, after extended public comment and questions from justices about dust, traffic safety, water use and neighborhood compatibility.

The court’s final roll-call vote adopted an ordinance denying the CUP. Justice Robert Dennis moved to deny the CUP; the motion was carried in roll call (majority yes, one abstention). The ordinance corrects the planning-board approval date to Oct. 30, 2025 and advances no permitting for the project at the proposed site.

Residents and nearby landowners told the court the site — about 7.42 acres with roughly 4.5 acres proposed for development — sits too close to homes, a veterinary clinic and Bob Kidd Lake. "We are about 500 feet from the proposed site," said Ashley Lester, a nearby resident and one of several public commenters who urged denial because of noise, bright nighttime lighting, constant truck traffic and the potential for dust to affect public health. Appellants cited petitions and written opposition collected during the planning-board process and told the court they had submitted thousands of signatures opposing the project.

Appellants’ technical and environmental concerns included: the site's bowl-like topography, which they said could concentrate noise and runoff; the proximity of residences and a veterinary clinic (appellants pointed to several properties within roughly 200–350 feet of the development footprint); potential groundwater and stormwater impacts to an on-site creek that drains to the Illinois watershed; and public-health risks from respirable particulate matter associated with cement dust. "Concrete mixing facilities emit toxic particulate matter, crystalline silica," an appellant's presentation said, citing EPA concerns and local health risks described by residents and their doctors.

O'Brien representatives — their attorney John Scott, engineer Jake Chavis (Odyssey Engineering), and owner Kyle O'Brien — said the company has operated in the region for decades and plans multiple mitigation measures. "This is a ratification hearing," attorney John Scott told the court, arguing the project followed the county notification and planning-board process and that the business is a locally needed supplier. Engineer Jake Chavis described engineering controls and permitting steps the company would undertake during the large-scale development phase, saying they would provide a dust-abatement plan, stormwater controls and photometric (lighting) plans. "We will provide a dust abatement plan," Chavis said. Owner Kyle O’Brien noted surprise inspections of an existing Gentry facility that, he said, produced no cited violations and described outside environmental monitoring contracts the company proposed.

Justices pressed applicants on enforceability and compliance. Planning staff explained enforcement would typically begin with notification and could escalate to fines and legal action for continuing violations, and that certain state permits (such as from ADEQ and R-DOT access approvals) are required during the large-scale permitting step. The planning director also confirmed the county’s regulations permit the quorum court to add or change conditions, including hours of operation and mitigation measures, during its review.

During deliberations, multiple justices cited specific criteria the court must consider for a high-intensity conditional use permit — including compatibility with surrounding uses, adequacy of utilities and roads, and whether the use would endanger public health or welfare. Several justices said in the record that, on balance, the project did not meet those criteria at the proposed location. J.P. Echke and others said local utilities and the roadway geometry on U.S. 62 raised safety and infrastructure concerns; J.P. Lemming and several colleagues said the plant is incompatible with adjacent residential lots and could harm neighbors’ enjoyment of their property. One justice noted the county code’s relatively modest fines for violations and questioned whether penalties would deter continued noncompliance.

The ordinance denying the CUP was advanced through required readings and by suspension of the rules to permit a third reading; the court corrected a clerical date (from June to Oct. 30, 2025) in the ordinance language before final adoption. The roll-call vote in favor of the ordinance recorded multiple ‘Yes’ votes and one abstention by Justice Lemming.

What happens next: denial at the quorum-court level ends the county’s ratification of the planning board’s approval for the CUP. The ordinance as adopted denies the permit at the proposed site; the applicant may pursue other legal or administrative options available under state law, including large-scale relocation, alternative sites, or court review if they allege procedural error. The county’s planning staff noted any future project at this or another site would still require large-scale permits, state environmental approvals and R-DOT access permits as applicable.

The court adjourned after passing the ordinance denying the CUP.