Planning board denies Antioch High School request to add colored graphics to electronic sign

The Antioch Planning & Zoning Board voted to approve a motion denying PCB 24-15, a request by Antioch Community High School to allow colored graphics, illustrations and more animated content on the campus electronic message board.

The decision followed a staff report that recommended denial. The report, prepared in late December, concluded the proposed variation would not meet the unique-conditions standard for a variance, cited resident complaints about the sign’s brightness, noted the nearest single-family home lies about 22 feet from the sign, and warned that permitting color and animation would set a precedent for similar requests elsewhere in the village.

Dr. Jeff Foy, superintendent of Community High School District 117, told the board the district seeks a modest update so the sign can "be more engaging" and better celebrate student events. He showed a short demonstration video of a sign used by another district and said the school would limit content, stop the sign at night and share time with village announcements. "We would like to make our sign more engaging," Foy said, adding the district can comply with rotation and timing limits the village may impose.

Board members pressed the school on operational details and controls. The superintendent said the school would run roughly six to eight rotating messages during the academic year and that village staff would have access to the cloud-based portal that controls the sign’s content.

Several board members pushed back, emphasizing the board’s established sign standards and the history of resident complaints. One member cited county traffic counts, saying about 12,000 vehicles travel north–south on Route 83 at the town center and about 15,000 travel east–west on Route 173, and argued those volumes, combined with the sign’s proximity to intersections and nearby homes, make added color or animation a potential distraction. "We put so much time and effort into this because we have a vision for the community," a board member said in explaining a "no" vote.

Staff had noted that while the board previously approved an electronic message board and the sign pedestal, earlier approvals did not authorize colored graphics or animations. The staff recommendation cited both the brightness complaints from neighbors and the risk of creating inconsistent precedent if a color/animation exception were granted.

After public comment and board discussion the motion to deny the requested variation carried on recorded votes of board members present.

The board adjourned after the vote. No future date for reconsideration was announced on the record.