DuPage County hearing continues Naperville church’s request for LED message sign; record left open

A DuPage County hearing officer on Feb. 4 continued consideration of Z 25072, a conditional-use petition from a Naperville church to install an LED electronic message-center pylon sign, leaving the record open for a revised site plan and scheduling a March 4 hearing.

The officer opened the Zoom proceeding, identified exhibits (a 2019 survey, a site plan and sign schematics) and asked the petitioners to present. Simon Song, "the trustee of the church in Naperville," said the church "work[s] with this sign company, A and G, to install this roadside sign on on the entrance of our property." Albert Esteban of A and G Design confirmed the company filed the application and described engineering support.

Why it matters: the conditional-use review turns on criteria in the county ordinance (referenced in testimony as section 37-14-13) that a use not be injurious to the neighborhood or detrimental to public welfare. Neighbors’ concerns about illumination, refresh rate and setbacks determine whether the county development committee and the full county board will approve the sign.

During testimony, trustee Peter Dong argued the sign would not harm the neighborhood, saying: "The sign is not close to any houses, It does not face any houses, and so would not cause a problem to anyone in the neighborhood." A and G Design showed the sign mock-up (Exhibit 3) and described construction details: "we are gonna use a, an, 3 inch schedule 40 steel pipe buried, you know, deep beneath, the the frost line." The company said the lower portion would be an electronic messaging center (EMC) with changing graphics while the upper portion would be a static internally illuminated panel.

The hearing officer questioned how frequently the EMC would refresh and noted county and state limits. Petitioners agreed to conform with county/state standards; the officer said he would "put that in the conditions" and indicated the refresh-cycle condition would reflect the applicable rules (he identified a 10-second standard during the hearing). The officer also directed the petitioners to clarify the front-of-sign setback on the site plan because the submitted drawing showed a 33-foot measurement to the back of the sign rather than the distance to the sign’s front face.

Outcome and next steps: the hearing officer closed oral testimony but left the record open for submission of the revised site plan showing the front setback. He said he would take the matter under consideration and prepare a recommendation to the county development committee (a subcommittee of the county board), and signaled an inclination toward a favorable recommendation. The matter is scheduled for a March 4, 2026, 3:00 p.m. Zoom hearing before the officer; subsequent consideration will occur at the county development committee and then the full county board, which will make the final decision.

The hearing did not include a vote; the officer’s recommendation and any formal action will follow the submission of the revised site plan and the county committee/board process.