Lisle trustees pause decision on Bennett Academy stadium after hours of public comment

The Lisle Village Board on Jan. 12 paused consideration of a major change to Bennett Academy’s planned unit development — including permission for stadium lighting — after more than two hours of public comment from supporters and nearby residents.

Bennett representatives described a series of voluntary concessions intended to reduce the project’s neighborhood impacts, including lowering permanent home‑side bleacher seating to about 1,400, reducing scoreboard dimensions, committing to heavily shielded Musco fixtures and a proposed 0.1 foot‑candle limit at the west property line, restricting lights to 54 days per year, banning lights on Sundays and during January, February, June, July and December, and testing to confirm a worst‑case sound level of about 83 decibels at the property line. Bennett attorney Caitlin Chuck said the school is “willing to have this modification stipulated in our PUD approval document” and highlighted additional schedule and operational limits submitted after the Planning & Zoning Commission hearings.

Opponents, many who live in Oak Hill South, said the stadium remains too close to homes and raised technical objections to the mitigation measures. Architect Danielle Apello told the board the proposed home stands would sit roughly 86 feet from nearby property lines and argued that distance — combined with a loudspeaker system, crowd noise and marching bands — would be “injurious to the use and enjoyment” of adjacent properties. Several residents also questioned whether Bennett’s noise modeling included band and crowd noise and urged stronger, enforceable remedies, such as tighter maximums, meaningful fines or relocation of the stadium farther from homes.

Trustees pressed for additional information on several fronts. Trustee Duffy and others asked for a clearer traffic plan tied to any Cascade Drive closures for events, a strict comparison to the North Central College lighting experience, and more documentation on why an eastern campus location had not been pursued. Trustees also asked that Bennett’s consultants confirm whether noise studies reflected worst‑case loudness from bands and crowds as well as sound‑system output.

Board members emphasized a preference to find a compromise. Mayor Mullin proposed pausing the process to allow staff, trustees, Bennett and residents to negotiate in good faith. When asked whether that timing was agreeable to Bennett, the board record shows Bennett replied, “Yes.” The mayor said the board did not plan to take final action that night and aimed to reconvene after further meetings, with a target of returning after the second board meeting in March to allow time for repeated discussions.

What remains unresolved are enforceable monitoring and penalty mechanisms, whether band and crowd noise will be included in any enforceable limits, and whether the eastern‑site options are feasible. Trustees asked staff to return with more comparative lighting and noise data, a full traffic and ingress/egress analysis that accounts for delivery vehicles and overflow parking logistics, and a clear plan for event‑time enforcement.

The Planning & Zoning Commission recommended the rezoning request by a 6–1 vote after a six‑meeting public hearing; in the board packet Bennett included a comparison to conditions imposed on a Wilmette school stadium and presented modified conditions it said were comparable or stricter in some respects. Residents opposing lights urged the board to deny the special use permit on grounds of injury to nearby properties; supporters including students and long‑time residents said modernized facilities would improve student safety, school pride and local economic activity.

The board paused the matter to give the parties time to work toward a mutually acceptable set of conditions; no vote was taken on Jan. 12.