Council introduces zoning changes for telecom facilities after industry concerns

St. Charles County Council introduced Bill 5366 on Monday, a proposed amendment to the county's Unified Development Ordinance that would change how telecom facilities are regulated in certain zones.

The bill, requested by Councilman Tim Baker and sponsored by Baker and Councilwoman Patty York, amends multiple sections of the zoning code to require conditional use review for specified telecom facilities in residential areas and to clarify limitations such as antenna protrusion and appearance requirements.

Jomo Castro, identified as speaking regarding Bill 5366, told the council the draft appears more restrictive than current rules. "It's clearly more restrictive and in requiring a conditional use permit for all telecom facilities," Castro said, and asked whether the measure targets wireless towers specifically and how it would affect wireline installations such as fiber. He also flagged a provision limiting antennas to extending no more than 5 feet above an existing structure and called for clearer definitions of paint and texture requirements used for "stealth" installations.

Councilman Tim Baker said the changes were prompted by a local case in his district where property had been rezoned commercially to accommodate a single cell-tower application in a residential neighborhood. "We've got an area in my district where there's plans for a cell tower, which is fine. But it's all in a residential area," Baker said, arguing the ordinance language aims to prevent long-term unintended rezoning consequences if tower technology changes.

County staff answered that some provisions Castro cited are not new. As one staff member explained, "If you read our ordinances when we put in these changes, if the wording is in bold, it means we're adding it. If it is stricken, that means that we're deleting it." Staff said the text on antenna height and texture reflects existing ordinance language in several places and that the draft is intended to clarify rather than depart from state or federal law. The speaker also noted a question about state law raised by the public will be checked; the transcript records no specific statute citation from the public commenter.

The bill was introduced and no final action was taken; council members asked staff to confirm alignment with state and federal statutes and to return with any needed edits. If moved forward, the amendment would create a conditional-use pathway for certain telecom facilities sited in or adjacent to residential areas.

Why it matters: Amendments to local telecom siting rules can affect where wireless infrastructure is built, how antennas are disguised in neighborhoods, and how quickly providers can deploy equipment. Industry representatives asked the council for clearer technical definitions to avoid unintended restrictions on coverage or conflicts with state law.

Next steps: Bill 5366 was introduced and will return for future hearings; staff will follow up to confirm statutory compliance and to clarify ambiguous terms in the draft ordinance.