At a county commission meeting, the Christian County Commission voted to deny a rezoning request for a roughly 29.5–30.5 acre tract off State Highway U near Rogersville, rejecting the applicant’s bid to change the property from A-1 agricultural to AR (agricultural-residential).

Scott, a county planning staff member, told the commission the county’s future land-use map supports agricultural or dispersed residential uses but noted that the current hearing considered only rezoning, not any subdivision plan. Scott said the Planning and Zoning Commission previously forwarded a recommendation of denial on a 4–3 vote.

Joshua Baker, an attorney for the applicant, described the developer’s plan to create eight lots — six about 3 acres each, one about 5½ acres and one about 6 acres — and said the intent was “to develop, 8 tracts, minimum of 3 acres” and that, “because we are looking at only 8 lots, we are not gonna have a substantial increase in traffic.” He said utilities would be private wells and electricity and that the developer planned to work with county staff on stormwater requirements.

Dozens of nearby residents spoke in opposition at the hearing. James Stewart, a property owner east of the site, warned that “the precedent of removing agricultural land, it's gonna only happen once,” and described concerns about losing hay fields and small-farm uses. Matt Daley, who lives adjacent to the property, said he moved “out to the country ... to have the serene, peaceful view” and opposed the change.

Multiple residents raised groundwater and well-capacity concerns. An engineer for the applicant explained that Missouri Department of Natural Resources (DNR) rules govern wells and septic systems and that low-density development typically “rarely has an effect upon the water table because of the density” and because septic effluent largely infiltrates back into groundwater, but several neighbors described existing well problems and muddy or low-yield supplies at times.

Other objections focused on traffic and public-safety response times on narrow county roads, potential runoff and changes to the area’s rural character. The applicant’s preliminary engineering estimated about 76 vehicle trips per day for the eight-lot buildout; the applicant’s engineer said the PM peak would be about eight trips in the peak hour.

During deliberations, commissioners emphasized two recurring points: that rezoning does not authorize any particular subdivision (a preliminary plat and code review would follow if rezoning passed), and that rezoning from A-1 to AR reduces the minimum lot size from five acres to three acres. Commissioners also debated county notification and whether some parcels in the area had been assigned AR during the county’s 2010 zoning map process.

A motion to deny the rezoning request carried. The board recorded the formal outcome as denial (motion passed, denial recorded by roll call). The Planning & Zoning Commission’s earlier recommendation of denial (4–3) was noted in the record. County staff explained that an applicant may still submit a major-subdivision application, but emphasized that subdivision approval is a separate review and that staff typically does not recommend advancing preliminary-plat hearings if the corresponding rezoning fails.

The record shows a broad mix of concerns from neighbors about loss of farmland, well yields, runoff and traffic; proponents argued the proposal matched lot sizes present in the area and would produce large lots and limited traffic.