DuPage County committee reviews draft nuisance ordinance to curb amplified late‑night noise in unincorporated areas

The DuPage County Judicial and Public Safety Committee discussed a draft county nuisance ordinance on April 1 that would give law enforcement a citation option for amplified noise in unincorporated areas.

Member Schorze raised the issue after receiving repeated complaints from neighbors in unincorporated West Chicago about late‑night amplified parties. “DuPage County doesn't have a noise ordinance that directly could handle this specific complaint,” Schorze said, prompting staff and the state's attorney's office to draft language for the committee to consider.

Assistant State's Attorney Connor McCarthy summarized the draft ordinance's key provisions: between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m., amplified noise that can be heard 100 feet from a residential structure could result in a citation; “that first fine would be a hundred dollars, the second, third, and their fourth could go, to 500 and up to a thousand dollars,” McCarthy said. McCarthy added the draft does not require use of a decibel meter: the standard is whether the noise could be heard from 100 feet.

Barb Reynolds, of the state's attorney's office, said the draft targets amplified sources such as DJs and microphones rather than ordinary loud conversation. “This is amplified. I think to Member Schorze's initial concern, this is when somebody has a huge party at the DJ. You have a microphone,” Reynolds said, and noted the draft includes “a number of reasonable exceptions” such as church bells and permitted events.

Committee members asked whether the measure would apply only to unincorporated areas and how enforcement would work. Reynolds confirmed it would apply to unincorporated county areas. Undersheriff Moore, who joined the meeting by phone, told the committee the sheriff's office could add the citation to the circuit court system if the ordinance is adopted. “We are all in agreement. This is good, and we have no problems ... adding this to our repertoire and getting this done when necessary,” Undersheriff Moore said.

Members discussed limits and challenges to enforcement. Reynolds said a 100‑foot standard is more likely to be sustained in court than shorter distances and that a decibel‑based standard would impose equipment and calibration costs that make enforcement harder. Member Rutledge asked about timing; staff said the ordinance text is drafted and that a formal ordinance or resolution could be prepared in about two weeks if the committee directs staff to place it on the agenda.

Committee members clarified several specific points raised during discussion: the draft allows special permits for one‑time events, the ordinance targets amplified noise and likely would not cover consumer fireworks as currently written, and officers would retain discretion to warn callers before issuing citations.

The committee did not adopt the ordinance at the April 1 meeting; members directed staff and the state's attorney's office to place the proposal on a future JPS agenda. The staff summary and legal counsel indicated the measure is intended as a nuisance ordinance enforceable through citation to the circuit court, subject to the exceptions shown in the draft.

The discussion combined repeated resident complaints from a single neighborhood with legal review and sheriff's‑office input; several members said giving deputies a citation option could reduce recurring late‑night disturbances.

Ending: Staff will prepare the formal ordinance or resolution language for a subsequent Judicial and Public Safety Committee meeting if the committee confirms that direction.