Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Telecommunications topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council rejects telecom tower conditional-use request; proponents warn AT&T service could be interrupted
Summary
A proposal tied to conditional use permit CUP 24-6 for a telecommunication tower failed on Jan. 13; proponents said AT&T must vacate an existing tank site by July 2025 and sought an alternate site, while council members raised zoning and neighborhood concerns.
A proposal to allow a telecommunication tower and related rezoning failed at the St. Charles County Council meeting Monday, Jan. 13, after the council voted down a substitute ordinance tied to conditional use permit CUP 24-6.
Planning staff said applicants amended their rezoning application from C1 (neighborhood business) to CO (office), which the applicants said would limit future high-intensity commercial uses. Robert Myers, director of the Planning and Zoning Division, told the council the applicants had changed the underlying zoning to make proposed uses "more in keeping with some of the comments that they had heard previously."
A roll-call vote on substitute bill number 5358 (CUP 24-06) produced a single vote in favor (Councilman Hammond) and six votes against (Councilwoman York, Councilman Baker, Councilman Swanson, Councilman Brazzell, Councilman Elam and Councilman Hollander), and the council recorded that the CUP failed.
A representative of the applicant, Tom Vineski of Diamond Tower 7, said the change to CO could still allow an 85-foot tower that would provide some coverage after AT&T vacates its existing tank site. "As of July of 2025, they need to come off that tank," Vineski said. "After they are taken off the tank, there will be no service for AT&T customers and that will impact not only their customers, but potential calls to 911 and public safety as well." He told the council the applicant had secured Ameren's agreement to the zoning change and argued that some service was preferable to none.
Council members pressed zoning and long-term land-use concerns. "The concern is with technology, 100 years from now, cell towers, it's fiber, and we've got to sell out," Councilman Baker said, urging consideration of countywide policy so cell towers would not produce isolated commercial zoning within residential areas. Baker said he had asked staff to draft an ordinance to require conditional-use process for cell towers rather than spot rezoning.
The council also considered substitute bill 5,359, a rezoning application for the same general area. The substitute rezoning failed on roll call (Councilwoman York, Councilman Elam and Councilman Hammond voted yes; four others voted no) and the measure did not pass.
Council members noted the applicants' lease arrangements with Ameren include provisions to remove towers if they remain unused for a prolonged period; that provision was discussed as a partial safeguard against abandoned infrastructure.
The applicants and planning staff said there may be opportunities to pursue alternate designs or sites. No final permit or rezoning ordinance passed at the Jan. 13 meeting.
