Saint Charles County panel denies brighter lights but approves taller poles for private school field

The Saint Charles County Board of Zoning Adjustment on Sept. 4, 2025, voted to deny a variance to exceed the county's 0.5 foot-candle illumination limit at a property line for a private school practice field but approved a second variance allowing light fixtures on poles up to 40 feet, subject to county conditions including full cutoff fixtures and no athletic-field lighting between 9 p.m. and 7 a.m.

The actions affect a private school and its adjacent practice field on Benny Road (parcel T222000523) in County Council District 2; the applicant sought both permission to exceed the county's maximum measured illumination at the property line and to install light poles taller than the 20-foot maximum in the Unified Development Ordinance.

Why it matters: The case drew a detailed staff presentation and a lengthy public comment from a neighbor who said existing exterior lighting already intrudes into his home. The board split on the illumination request and approved the pole-height variance with added conditions, leaving the matter subject to appeal to the County Council within 14 days after the board's written findings are mailed.

Board Chairman Jerry Printer opened the hearing and heard a presentation from the applicant's representative, Sean Nelson, who said the field serves students and local children. "We would like to be able to play," Nelson said, describing a recently installed turf soccer field used by the school's students and friends and saying fall and spring practices get dark early. Nelson said the school currently enrolls 23 students and has an operational capacity of 50.

Robert Myers, the planning and zoning division director for Saint Charles County, reviewed zoning and procedural context for the board. He said the school operates under a conditional use permit with conditions that limit outdoor activities and lighting and that the county ordinance limits exterior illumination to no more than 0.5 foot-candle as measured at the property line. "Half a foot candle represents very dim lighting similar to the faint light in the far corners of a parking lot or on a pedestrian walkway," Myers said, and he noted the applicant had provided a lighting plan showing field illumination but not measured property-line values.

A neighbor, David Vingantard of 4140 Benny Road, testified against the variances. "The lights are on all night long," Vingantard said. "I have to shut doors to the bedroom to be able to sleep at night." He told the board he had visited the property multiple times seeking adjustments and that he believed the existing lights already spill onto his property; he asked the board to deny additional lighting.

Board discussion focused on two technical issues: whether the applicant had demonstrated that property-line illumination would exceed the 0.5 foot-candle threshold (staff said the submitted plan did not definitively show property-line levels) and how tall poles should be to provide reasonably even field lighting without creating additional off-site glare. Myers noted an earlier county variance in 2013 that allowed 70-foot poles for a Francis Howell School District athletic field but the current application asked for 40-foot poles in the supporting documents.

The Board of Zoning Adjustment voted first on the request to exceed the 0.5 foot-candle limit at the property line; that request was defeated. The board then voted on a separate motion to allow light fixtures on poles taller than the 20-foot maximum, adding a limiting condition that the poles be no taller than 40 feet and that fixtures be shielded and oriented to meet the county's property-line illumination limit. That motion passed with the county conditions included.

Myers told the board that county staff had not performed a nighttime compliance check at the site but that the department investigates neighbor complaints and can perform after-dark measurements with a light meter if the community files a request. He advised that any enforcement of conditions would follow the community development complaint and inspection process.

The board's approval notes that athletic-field lighting should not be operated between 9 p.m. and 7 a.m., consistent with conditions attached to the school's conditional use permit. Board members and staff also discussed appeal rights: any party may appeal the board's decision to the County Council within 14 days after the board's findings are mailed.

The board concluded the hearing after addressing public comments and approved minutes from a prior meeting before adjourning. The record shows the variance for pole height (with the 40-foot limit and shielding conditions) was approved; the illumination variance was denied.

Ending note: Neighbors were told how to submit complaints to the Community Development Department for after-hours inspections; the board recommended that the applicant work with staff on a final lighting plan showing property-line foot-candle values before building permits are finalized.