DuPage County Board rejects zoning variance for Wheaton video‑gaming café

The DuPage County Board on Sept. 9 voted down a petition to permit a video‑gaming café in Wheaton to operate within less than 1,000 feet of a place of assembly, rejecting requested zoning variations and related changes.

The petition — listed as DCO 31‑25 (Zoning 2535) — asked the board to approve a conditional use for a video‑gaming café in a B‑1 local business zoning district and a variation to allow the café to be located less than 1,000 feet from a place of assembly. The development committee had recommended approval after the petitioner offered amendments, including a Sunday start time no earlier than 1 p.m. and a right‑in/right‑out driveway restriction. The Zoning Board of Appeals had denied the petition, which under county practice required a three‑quarters majority on the county board to override that denial.

The board discussed traffic, parking and the appearance of setting a precedent for large variances. “I’m gonna be voting against this,” Member Eckhoff said, arguing that the requested variance was a large departure from the standard distance and that approving it could open the door to similar variances elsewhere.

After a roll call, the motion failed. The clerk announced the final tally as 11 yes, 5 no and 2 not voting; the motion therefore did not carry the supermajority required to overcome the earlier Zoning Board of Appeals denial.

Supporters said the petitioner had offered concessions designed to reduce traffic impacts, including the restricted hours and the right‑in/right‑out access, and noted that the place‑of‑assembly owner had not objected. Opponents cited the city of Wheaton’s historic opposition to gaming uses and said allowing an exception for this site would undercut the county’s distance rule.

The petition included other clarifications offered by the petitioner: operating hours to start no earlier than 1 p.m. on Sundays and a driveway configuration limited to right‑in/right‑out movements. The requested variation was described in committee discussion as roughly a 30% reduction from the 1,000‑foot separation requirement (bringing the separation distance to about 700 feet as discussed during debate).

Because the Zoning Board of Appeals denied the application, county rules required a three‑quarters majority to overturn that decision; the motion did not reach that threshold and therefore failed. The board did not adopt any alternative direction to staff at the meeting.

Planning and zoning records show the matter will remain subject to local permitting rules; the transcript does not indicate any immediate resubmittal timetable from the petitioner.