The Jefferson County Council’s denial of a rezoning request that would have allowed a residential development at Hwy. A and Sandy Valley Road east of Hillsboro followed a lengthy discussion about whether development is being discouraged in the county.
The council voted 4-2 on Dec. 12 to deny a proposal from Bridle Creek Properties LLC of Ste. Genevieve to rezone 155.3 acres from large-lot residential to planned single-family residential that would have allowed the development of 303 homes and 45 duplexes.
“This is a very important vote for the county,” said Councilman Brian Haskins (District 1, High Ridge), who cast one of the two dissenting votes and noted that the council has voted against several recent residential developments. “I would say in all the time I’ve been involved up here, we’ve never had anybody who doesn’t oppose a project. It doesn’t really matter the size or the scope, whether they’re apartments or new homes, even if the homes are big homes, it doesn’t really matter.
“There’s always this idea that people don’t want to see the trees knocked down behind them,” Haskins said. “They’re almost accepted as common ground. But we know that can’t happen in a community. Nothing happens that has a bigger impact than what happens with new homes and jobs and construction. There are a lot of good union jobs. There’s a huge impact.”
Haskins said in his district, about 1,800 homes have been built in the last 10 to 15 years.
“Most of the property taxes from those homes go to schools,” he said.
Haskins also noted that the last major shopping center to be built in the county, High Ridge Commons, was an answer to the growth in that area.
Councilwoman Renee Reuter (District 2, Imperial) voted to deny the rezoning, saying she appreciated the concerns some of those who attended a Nov. 17 Planning and Zoning Commission public hearing voiced about whether the roads in the area could support the growth. She also said she lives in an area where improvements to two-lane, winding roads have been slow to follow residential growth.
“It’s a recipe for disaster,” she said.
Councilman Charles Groeteke (District 4, Barnhart) agreed.
“Until we get some of these issues cleared up, like infrastructure – and the new master plan will hopefully address some of these issues – I believe the citizens must be heard. I don’t believe there is any portion of this property that can’t be used as it is currently zoned.”
At the P&Z hearing, Bridle Creek representatives said the company would pay for a traffic signal at Hwy. A and Sandy Valley Road, and that most Heartland residents would not choose to drive on narrow county roads like Zion Lutheran Church and Jarvis roads to make their way to Hwy. 21 when they could take Hwy. A to I-55.
Councilman Scott Seek (District 5, Festus) also voted against the denial.
“Growth is happening,” he said. “We can have it somewhere else or we can have it here.”
Seek said he understands why some people are worried about new developments being approved without having the supporting infrastructure in place, but he thinks the Bridle Ridge Properties would have helped bring some infrastructure improvements to the area.
“It’s a chicken-or-the-egg situation,” he said. “In a lot of these kinds of situations, if we have conversations with the developer, they’re willing to be part of that growth of infrastructure. In all of the information we received about this, it seemed as if the developer was interested in infrastructure projects to make things more safe. The roads they’re talking about are not winding. They’re straight.”
Council members Phil Hendrickson (District 3, Arnold) and Dan Stallman (District 6, De Soto) also voted to deny the request; Vicky James (District 7, Cedar Hill) was absent.
The denial marked Bridle Creek’s third failed attempt to develop the area.
Two years ago, the County Council denied a request for a rezoning that would have allowed 273 homes and 22 duplexes. The same developer had submitted an application for a rezoning in the area in 2019 but withdrew it before a hearing could be scheduled because planning staff had concerns about the proposed density.
In 2007, different developers submitted a plan for 191 homes and 32 duplexes on the northern part of the property – a lot that takes in almost 100 acres – but the county denied that application.
The developers appealed the ruling, but the Jefferson County Circuit Court ruled the denial was proper.
The P and Z board, which advises the County Council on rezoning matters in unincorporated areas of the county, voted 5-1 to recommend denial after the Nov. 17 public hearing.