Lisle board asks staff to review residential commercial-filming rules after repeated shoots at one house

The Village of Lisle’s Committee of the Whole agreed Aug. 18 to ask staff to review the village’s commercial-filming regulations after hearing that most recent permit activity has centered at a single residence and that a recent multi‑day shoot brought a large crew and extended hours to a neighborhood.

The review will examine whether the village’s Feb. 2020 ordinance and related permit rules are meeting policy goals to promote filming while protecting residents, Village staff said. Village staff and board members asked that any draft changes be developed with input from affected homeowners, neighbors and relevant commissions and returned to the board for consideration.

Assistant to the Village Manager Havlik opened the discussion by reminding the board that the village adopted an ordinance in February 2020 to establish requirements for commercial filming and a permitting process. Havlik said the village has received 37 commercial filming permit applications since the ordinance was adopted, with 29 of those applications tied to a single residential address. Havlik said staff sees “an opportunity to look at current regulations and additional guardrails” and was seeking board direction on whether to proceed.

Homeowner Julie Wynne, who identified herself as the owner of the property at 2410 College Wood Court, told the committee hosting productions has provided income for her family and benefits local businesses. “Hosting productions at our home has been an overwhelmingly positive experience,” Wynne said. She described working with the scouting company Levinson Locations and said crews have stayed in local hotels, dined at neighborhood restaurants and hired local crews.

At the same time, Wynne acknowledged neighborhood impacts and said productions have taken steps to reduce disruption — moving unnecessary vehicles off site, renting parking lots for crew parking, hiring drivers and limiting parking along adjacent streets. She said the only complaints she knew of came from a resident a block away who cited traffic and delivery activity.

Trustees expressed general support for continuing to welcome filming but asked staff to identify clearer thresholds and protections for neighbors. Trustee Duffy and others recounted a past incident in which a large production, including semi trailers and bright lighting, significantly disturbed a neighborhood and nearly split the community. Trustee Duffy urged the board to define “the volume that is tolerable,” including whether nearby residents should have a role in approving larger or repeated shoots.

Trustee Lesniak said the village should apply “common sense” and consider whether interior filming at commercial properties should be left to landlords and business insurance unless it spills into public areas. Lesniak asked staff to examine how the village’s film-permit rules intersect with the home-occupation ordinance and suggested the review should clarify where the village’s regulatory authority properly applies.

Trustee Olson and other trustees asked staff to identify objective triggers that would change permit requirements — for example, number of consecutive filming days, number of days per month, crew size or parking impacts — and whether a residential location could reach a threshold that makes it effectively behave like a commercial site.

Village Manager Cook summarized the discussion and recommended staff return with draft suggestions. “Let us go back, do some work, and we can kind of hash through some of the details and come back at a future date with some suggestions for your consideration,” Cook said. Board members asked that drafts be circulated to the homeowner who has been hosting shoots and to neighbors, and that staff consider input from the Economic Development Commission on how to promote filming while managing impacts.

Existing permit limits cited during the discussion include hours authorized under the current rules: filming is allowed until 9 p.m. Monday through Friday and until 7 p.m. on Saturdays and Sundays; staff said some applicants have requested later hours but staff has kept approved activity to the current limits. Board members noted a recent production at the residence involved up to 90 crew members on a single day and ran four days.

No ordinance changes were adopted at the meeting. The committee’s direction was limited to staff research and drafting recommendations for board consideration with stakeholder input.

The meeting moved on after the discussion; an executive session on the agenda was not held and the meeting adjourned following the regular agenda.