The DuPage County Zoning Board continued a request from Lucky 7 Bistro on a date-certain hearing to Nov. 20 at 6 p.m., after the applicant sought a variance to allow a video-gaming café within 1,000 feet of an existing or proposed video-gaming establishment.

The applicant, Ranchhod Patel, owner of Lucky 7 Bistro, told the board he began approvals and construction in 2023, received building and department approvals, obtained an occupancy permit on March 20, 2025, and paid for a liquor license application. Patel said he had spent substantial funds preparing the business and asked the board to grant zoning relief so he could open.

Chairman Bob Hartley said the board could not base a zoning decision on the applicant’s expenditures alone and asked the petitioner to present evidence tied to the zoning ordinance’s purposes. “I cannot make the decision based on how much it cost you,” Hartley said, adding that the board needs information such as projected customer flow, traffic counts and an analysis showing the reasons for the 1,000-foot separation would not be implicated in this case. He told the applicant: “You have to give us something to hang your hat on.”

Harry Patel, who identified himself as a family member involved in the project, told the board that zoning approval was received in September 2023 and that health, fire and building approvals followed in November 2023. He said construction proceeded, inspections were completed and the business obtained an occupancy permit in March 2025, after which the applicant applied for a liquor license and learned of a nearby facility identified in the record as Royal Liquor.

Board members noted an objection filed by the Village of Addison and that the matter was published in the Daily Herald on Oct. 16, 2025. Members also discussed the broader set of similar petitions the county has received and expressed concern about setting a precedent that could erode the separation rule if numerous variances were granted based on administrative errors.

Rather than decide the petition at the meeting, the board continued the hearing to Nov. 20 at 6:00 p.m. so the applicant can return with zoning-specific evidence addressing the ordinance’s purposes, such as anticipated traffic, concentration of like uses, hours of operation and other factors the board identified as relevant. The chair said the continuance is to a date certain and re-notification is not required.

If the applicant chooses not to supplement the record at the continued hearing, the board indicated it would decide the case on the record submitted to that point and that the ultimate authority for final action may rest with the county board in subsequent proceedings.

The board adjourned after the scheduling action.