Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council affirms zoning board decision on lighting variance after debate and public opposition
Summary
Council affirmed the Board of Zoning Adjustments decision on a lighting variance for a private soccer field (Bill 5431) after public testimony and council debate about light levels, pole heights and neighborhood impacts; the vote outcome and the chair’s explanation about voting consequences drew attention.
The St. Charles County Council voted on Oct. 27 to affirm the Board of Zoning Adjustments decision on Variance 25‑03a, a petition seeking taller poles and brighter lighting for a private soccer field. The variance request — described in public comment as asking for 40-foot poles and about 50 foot‑candles of illumination where code allows 20-foot poles — drew opposition from nearby residents concerned about light pollution and wildlife.
"Why does he need 50 foot candles out in a rural area for a soccer field for kids," resident Rosak said during public comments, adding that the level is excessive for grade-school activities and would disrupt animals and neighbors.
Council debate centered on whether the council’s vote would enable or block the lights. Councilman Brazel urged colleagues to consider fairness to the applicant and noted other nearby facilities with taller poles. Council members and the chair clarified the procedure: because the board did not grant the variance, voting "no" on the ordinance would allow the applicant to install lights under different rules, while voting "yes" would affirm the board’s denial. The council’s roll call was unusual: each council member answered "No" during roll call, and the chair nevertheless declared the ordinance passes; the chair later confirmed the procedural threshold for allowing lights would be five votes.
Council members split in tone: some supported the applicant’s right to develop recreational facilities and emphasized mitigation commitments (for example, restrictions on hours of use), while others echoed public-comment concerns about dark‑sky impacts and out‑of-scale lighting for a rural site.
The bill's passage affirms the Board of Zoning Adjustments’ decision on the variance. The Council did not adopt any additional conditions during the final passage vote. The matter had been the subject of earlier public hearings and public comment at this meeting; council members indicated the unusual voting mechanics required care when interpreting the roll call outcome.
The council’s action on Bill 5431 concludes the board‑level appeal but leaves underlying questions about appropriate lighting levels and conditions for night events to implementation and potential future review.
